Chest Symptoms Following Coronary Stenting in the First 10 Weeks of Recovery

Gallagher, Robyn; Lynch, Felicity; Paul, Glenn; Petkovski, Diana; Kandl, Bronia; Lang, Scott A.; Thomas, Narrel; Fildes, Jennifer; James, B. W.; Love, Fiona

doi:10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2007.08.001

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Staff thus need to encourage attendance at CRPs perhaps utilising a more personal and flexible perspective. Healthcare professionals often emphasize the importance of teaching patients about the pathophysiology of CHD (27). This, however, may not be what the patient considers to be most important (11).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge and Beliefs about Risk Factor Information among Non-Attendees in Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs

Almerud-Österberg¹,

Baigi²,

Bering³

et al. 2011

Nordic Journal of Nursing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Scant attention has been given to patients who decline participation in cardiac rehabilitation programs (CRP). Aim: The aim was to identify knowledge and beliefs about risk factor information associated with coronary heart disease (CHD) with a focus on sex and educational differences among CHD patients not attending a CRP. Methods: Consecutive non-attendees (n=106) completed a questionnaire focused on patients' attitudes to risk factors and CRPs. Findings: Knowledge and beliefs about risk factors important for CHD among non-attendees are overall low particularly in terms of depression, social isolation, diabetes, and hereditary factors. Female non-attendees considered information about hereditary factors and their importance for CHD to be a significantly more important issue than men. No statistically significant differences in beliefs about information onspecific or general risk factors were found. There was, however, a significant difference in educational level. Non-attendees with a higher education level had obtained more information about CHD than those with a lower education level. Conclusion: Non-attendees lack knowledge about known risk factors and their importance for CHD regardless of sex and education level. There appears to be a need to develop more personal and flexible interventions in order to increase non-attendees' knowledge about risk factors for CHD.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge and Beliefs about Risk Factor Information among Non-Attendees in Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs

Almerud-Österberg¹,

Baigi²,

Bering³

et al. 2011

Nordic Journal of Nursing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Nonischemic Chest Pain Following Successful Percutaneous Coronary Intervention at a Regional Referral Centre in Southern Ontario

McGillion

Arthur

Natarajan

et al. 2012

Canadian Journal of Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of acute gain and late lumen loss after PCI with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents: an exploratory observational study prior to a randomised trial

Zhang

Bourantas²,

Muramatsu³

et al. 2014

EuroIntervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study sought to compare the acute gain and two-year follow-up late lumen loss (LLL) between the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and the analogous everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES). The current analysis included all the patients recruited in the ABSORB Cohort B and SPIRIT II trials implanted with a single 3.0×18 mm device (Absorb BVS or EES) who underwent serial angiographic examinations at baseline and at two-year follow-up. The acute gain was defined as the difference between post- and preprocedural minimal lumen diameter (MLD). The in-stent/scaffold LLL was calculated as the difference in stent/scaffold segment between the post-procedural MLD and follow-up MLD. Thirty-three patients (33 lesions) implanted with the Absorb BVS, and 26 patients (28 lesions) implanted with the EES were studied. The acute gain was similar in the Absorb BVS group (1.23±0.38 mm) compared to the EES group (1.32±0.26 mm, p=0.29). The in-stent/scaffold LLL at two-year follow-up in the Absorb BVS group (0.26±0.19 mm) was also similar compared to the EES group (0.22±0.22 mm, p=0.29). Although the two groups had similar two-year clinical outcomes (major adverse cardiac events: Absorb BVS: 6.1% vs. EES: 0.0%), patients treated with the Absorb BVS exhibited a significantly lower two-year in-stent/scaffold MLD compared to the EES (2.02±0.26 mm vs. 2.22±0.34 mm, p=0.01). Although BVS and EES demonstrated similar two-year clinical outcomes, patients treated with the Absorb BVS exhibited a significantly lower two-year in-stent/scaffold MLD compared to patients treated with the EES. Appropriately powered randomised trials are necessary to confirm these exploratory results and evaluate their prognostic and clinical significance.

show abstract

Chest Symptoms Following Coronary Stenting in the First 10 Weeks of Recovery

Cited by 3 publications

References 15 publications

Knowledge and Beliefs about Risk Factor Information among Non-Attendees in Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs

Knowledge and Beliefs about Risk Factor Information among Non-Attendees in Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs

Nonischemic Chest Pain Following Successful Percutaneous Coronary Intervention at a Regional Referral Centre in Southern Ontario

Comparison of acute gain and late lumen loss after PCI with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents: an exploratory observational study prior to a randomised trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About