2014
DOI: 10.5603/kp.a2013.0350
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Secondary prevention in patients after hospitalisation due to coronary artery disease: what has changed since 2006?

Abstract: We noted a modest improvement in the implementation of CAD secondary prevention guidelines in everyday clinical practice: blood pressure was better controlled, although the control of all other main risk factors did not change significantly. Our data provides evidence that there is a considerable potential for further reduction of cardiovascular risk in CAD patients.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
12
1
9

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

5
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
3
12
1
9
Order By: Relevance
“…We analyzed data of participants of five surveys assessing secondary prevention following hospitalization due to CAD carried out in 1997-1998, 1999-2000, 2006-2007, 2011-2013, and 2016-2017 [8][9][10][11][12]. The same five hospitals serving the city and surrounding districts participated in each survey.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We analyzed data of participants of five surveys assessing secondary prevention following hospitalization due to CAD carried out in 1997-1998, 1999-2000, 2006-2007, 2011-2013, and 2016-2017 [8][9][10][11][12]. The same five hospitals serving the city and surrounding districts participated in each survey.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The same five hospitals serving the city and surrounding districts participated in each survey. Methods used in surveys were published previously and were similar each time [8][9][10][11][12][13]. Shortly, in each survey the study sample consisted of consecutive patients hospitalized for coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention or myocardial infarction or unstable angina.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the optimal secondary prevention strategy in patients with new onset glucose abnormalities and AMI still has not been thoroughly established. Although nonpharmacological treatment is considered the first-line therapy for new onset glucose abnormalities, published studies have shown unsatisfactory adherence to such management in patients with coronary artery disease, especially with concomitant DM [12,[15][16][17]. Recently, it has been shown that among patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction and without DM, but including patients with prediabetes, subjects who were treated with metformin presented modest improvement of cardiovascular risk profile at four-month follow-up [18].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to this statement the education programme should be started immediately after early rehabilitation, and the patient's first ambulatory control visit should be performed four weeks after ACS. In the meantime, alarming data have been published for Poland, which suggest only modest improvement in the implementation of secondary prevention guidelines in everyday clinical practice for CVD as well as substantial long-term mortality for patients after myocardial infarction [3,4]. Based on these recommendations and worrisome results of poor adherence to secondary prevention measures, a planned programme of a series of educational meetings for patients after ACS was initiated in the form of the Patient Club in nine invasive cardiology centres in Southern and Eastern Poland by the local NGO (Cardiovascular Centre Foundation, Krakow, Poland) independently from rehabilitation schemes that were applied by default.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%