Coronary artery bypass grafting is the most frequently performed cardiac surgical procedure. Despite its benefits on survival and quality of life, it is associated with a considerable financial burden on society including sick leave. Our study aimed to explore the barriers that obstruct return to work after coronary artery bypass grafting. We performed a qualitative study with in-depth interviewing of patients 6 months after their surgery. We included ten working patients and interviewed them and their spouses at home. The interviews were transcribed and two investigators independently searched the transcriptions for barriers that had obstructed return to work. Based on the interviews we were able to distinguish four main groups of barriers: 'personal', 'healthcare', 'work' and 'law & regulation.' The personal barriers were subgrouped in affective, physical, cognitive, social and individually determined factors. Conclusion In a qualitative study we showed that personal barriers as well as barriers regarding healthcare, work and law & regulation, were perceived by patients as important factors obstructing return to work after coronary artery bypass grafting. To overcome the identified barriers, the process of return to work could preferably be initiated during the hospital phase, started during cardiac rehabilitation, and coordinated by a case-managing professional.
LINK
Objective: To compare the treatment effect on lifestyle-related risk factors (LRFs) in older (≥65 years) versus younger (<65 years) patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) in The Randomised Evaluation of Secondary Prevention by Outpatient Nurse SpEcialists 2 (RESPONSE-2) trial. Methods: The RESPONSE-2 trial was a community-based lifestyle intervention trial (n=824) comparing nurse-coordinated referral with a comprehensive set of three lifestyle interventions (physical activity, weight reduction and/or smoking cessation) to usual care. In the current analysis, our primary outcome was the proportion of patients with improvement at 12 months follow-up (n=711) in ≥1 LRF stratified by age. Results: At baseline, older patients (n=245, mean age 69.2±3.9 years) had more adverse cardiovascular risk profiles and comorbidities than younger patients (n=579, mean age 53.7±6.6 years). There was no significant variation on the treatment effect according to age (p value treatment by age=0.45, OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.31). However, older patients were more likely to achieve ≥5% weight loss (OR old 5.58, 95% CI 2.77 to 11.26 vs OR young 1.57, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.49, p=0.003) and younger patients were more likely to show non-improved LRFs (OR old 0.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.67 vs OR young 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.26, p=0.01). Conclusion: Despite more adverse cardiovascular risk profiles and comorbidities among older patients, nurse-coordinated referral to a community-based lifestyle intervention was at least as successful in improving LRFs in older as in younger patients. Higher age alone should not be a reason to withhold lifestyle interventions in patients with CAD.
OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of a comprehensive secondary prevention programme on weight loss and to identify determinants of weight change in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis focusing on the subgroup of overweight CAD patients (BMI ≥27 kg/m2) in the Randomised Evaluation of Secondary Prevention by Outpatient Nurse SpEcialists-2 (RESPONSE-2) multicentre randomised trial. We evaluated weight change from baseline to 12-month follow-up; multivariable logistic regression with backward elimination was used to identify determinants of weight change.RESULTS: Intervention patients (n=280) lost significantly more weight than control patients (n=257) (-2.4±7.1 kg vs -0.2±4.6 kg; p<0.001). Individual weight change varied widely, with weight gain (≥1.0 kg) occurring in 36% of interventions versus 41% controls (p=0.21). In the intervention group, weight loss of ≥5% was associated with higher age (OR 2.94), lower educational level (OR 1.91), non-smoking status (OR 2.92), motivation to start with weight loss directly after the baseline visit (OR 2.31) and weight loss programme participation (OR 3.33), whereas weight gain (≥1 kg) was associated with smoking cessation ≤6 months before or during hospitalisation (OR 3.21), non-Caucasian ethnicity (OR 2.77), smoking at baseline (OR 2.70), lower age (<65 years) (OR 1.47) and weight loss programme participation (OR 0.59).CONCLUSION: The comprehensive secondary prevention programme was, on average, effective in achieving weight loss. However, wide variation was observed. As weight gain was observed in over one in three participants in both groups, prevention of weight gain may be as important as attempts to lose weight.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR3937.
