Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23813851›Full record

Trial reportHeart (British Cardiac Society)2013

Effect of a nurse-coordinated prevention programme on cardiovascular risk after an acute coronary syndrome: main results of the RESPONSE randomised trial.

Harald T Jorstad, Clemens von Birgelen, A Marco W Alings, Anho Liem, Jan Melle van Dantzig, Wybren Jaarsma, Dirk J A Lok, Hans J A Kragten, Keesjan de Vries, Paul A R de Milliano and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02522182 (ALLiance for sEcondary PREvention After an Episode of Acute Coronary Syndrome. The ALLEPRE Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 42 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02522182 nacompletednot on this map

ALLiance for sEcondary PREvention After an Episode of Acute Coronary Syndrome. The ALLEPRE Trial: a Fully Nurse-led Intensive Intervention Programme

TypeinterventionalSponsorAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di ParmaRan2012 to 2025Enrolled2,060ConditionsAcute Coronary SyndromeArmsNurse-led Intensive Secondary Prevention Programme, Usual Treatment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Nursing interventions for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Patient education in the management of coronary heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Harald T JorstadDepartment of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center-University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Noord Holland, The Netherlands. h.t.jorstad@amc.uva.nl
Clemens von Birgelen
A Marco W Alings
Anho Liem
Jan Melle van Dantzig
Wybren Jaarsma
Dirk J A Lok
Hans J A Kragten
Keesjan de Vries
Paul A R de Milliano
Adrie J A M Withagen
Wilma J M Scholte Op Reimer
Jan G P Tijssen
Ron J G Peters

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo quantify the impact of a practical, hospital-based nurse-coordinated prevention programme on cardiovascular risk, integrated into the routine clinical care of patients discharged after an acute coronary syndrome, as compared with usual care only.

designRESPONSE (Randomised Evaluation of Secondary Prevention by Outpatient Nurse SpEcialists) was a randomised clinical trial.

settingMulticentre trial in secondary and tertiary healthcare settings.

participants754 patients admitted for acute coronary syndrome.

interventionA nurse-coordinated prevention programme, consisting of four outpatient nurse clinic visits, focusing on healthy lifestyles, biometric risk factors and medication adherence, in addition to usual care.

main outcome measuresThe main outcome was 10-year cardiovascular mortality risk as estimated by Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation at 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes included Framingham Coronary Risk Score at 12 months, in addition to changes in individual risk factors. Risk factor control was classified as 'poor' if 0 to 3 factors were on target, 'fair' if 4 to 6 factors were on target, and 'good' if 7 to 9 were on target.

resultsThe mean Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation at 12 months was 4.4 per cent (SD 4.5) in the intervention group and 5.4 per cent (SD 6.2) in the control group (p=0.021), representing a 17.4% relative risk reduction. At 12 months, risk factor control classified as 'good' was achieved in 35% of patients in the intervention group compared with 25% in the control group (p=0.003). Attendance to the nurse-coordinated prevention programme was 92%. In the intervention group, 86 rehospitalisations were observed against 132 in the control group (relative risk reduction 34.8%, p=0.023).

conclusionsThe nurse-coordinated hospital-based prevention programme in addition to usual care is a practical, yet effective method for reduction of cardiovascular risk in patients with coronary disease. Our data suggest that the counselling component of the programme may lead to a reduction in hospital readmissions. TRIAL REGISTRATION TRIALREGISTERNL IDENTIFIER: TC1290.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareMedication AdherenceRisk Reduction BehaviorAcute Coronary SyndromeAgedChi-Square DistributionFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPatient Education as TopicRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSecondary PreventionCoronary Artery Disease

Identifiers

PMID23813851
PMCPMC3786610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.