Standard

Lifestyle modification in older versus younger patients with coronary artery disease. / Jepma, Patricia; Jorstad, Harald T.; Snaterse, Marjolein et al.

In: Heart, Vol. 106, 2020, p. 1066-1072.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

BibTeX

@article{d3f4f077eba84b5599d710242195e0c1,
title = "Lifestyle modification in older versus younger patients with coronary artery disease",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "aged, coronary artery disease, disease management, secondary prevention",
author = "Patricia Jepma and Jorstad, {Harald T.} and Marjolein Snaterse and {ter Riet}, Gerben and Hans Kragten and Sangeeta Lachman and Madelon Minneboo and Boekholdt, {S. Matthijs} and Peters, {Ron J.} and {Scholte op Reimer}, Wilma",
year = "2020",
doi = "10.1136/heartjnl-2019-316056",
language = "English",
volume = "106",
pages = "1066--1072",
journal = "Heart (British Cardiac Society)",
issn = "1355-6037",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Lifestyle modification in older versus younger patients with coronary artery disease

AU - Jepma, Patricia

AU - Jorstad, Harald T.

AU - Snaterse, Marjolein

AU - ter Riet, Gerben

AU - Kragten, Hans

AU - Lachman, Sangeeta

AU - Minneboo, Madelon

AU - Boekholdt, S. Matthijs

AU - Peters, Ron J.

AU - Scholte op Reimer, Wilma

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - aged

KW - coronary artery disease

KW - disease management

KW - secondary prevention

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85082672092&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/heartjnl-2019-316056

DO - 10.1136/heartjnl-2019-316056

M3 - Article

C2 - 32179587

VL - 106

SP - 1066

EP - 1072

JO - Heart (British Cardiac Society)

JF - Heart (British Cardiac Society)

SN - 1355-6037

ER -

ID: 11344398