Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Finlay A McAlister a Division of General Internal Medicine, 2E3.24
WMC, University of Alberta Hospital, 8440 112 Street, Edmonton, AL,
Canada T6G 2R7, b Division of Geriatric Medicine, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, AL, Canada T6G 2R7, c Division of Cardiology,
University of Alberta, d Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON,
Canada L8S 4l8
Correspondence to: F McAlister Finlay.McAlister{at}ualberta.ca
Objective:
To determine whether multidisciplinary
disease management programmes for patients with coronary heart disease improve processes of care and reduce morbidity and mortality.
What is already known on this topic
What this study adds
Data sources:
Randomised clinical trials of
disease management programmes in patients with coronary heart disease
were identified by searching Medline 1966-2000, Embase 1980-99, CINAHL
1982-99, SIGLE 1980-99, the Cochrane controlled trial register, the
Cochrane effective practice and organisation of care study register,
and bibliographies of published studies.
Data extraction:
Studies were selected and data
were extracted independently by two investigators, and summary
risk ratios were calculated by using both the random effects model
and the fixed effects model.
Data synthesis:
A total of 12 trials (9803 patients with coronary heart disease) were identified. Disease
management programmes had positive impacts on processes of care.
Patients randomised to these programmes were more likely to be
prescribed efficacious drugs (risk ratio 2.14 (95% confidence interval
1.92 to 2.38) for lipid lowering drugs, 1.19 (1.07 to 1.32) for
blockers, and 1.07 (1.03 to 1.11) for antiplatelet agents). Five out of seven trials evaluating risk factor profiles showed significantly greater improvements with these programmes in comparison with usual
care (with effect sizes in the moderate range). Summary risk ratios
were 0.91 (0.79 to 1.04) for all cause mortality, 0.94 (0.80 to 1.10)
for recurrent myocardial infarction, and 0.84 (0.76 to 0.94) for
admission to hospital. Five of the eight trials evaluating quality of
life or functional status reported better outcomes in the intervention
arms. Only three of these trials reported the costs of the
intervention
the interventions were cost saving in two cases.
Conclusions:
Disease management programmes
improve processes of care, reduce admissions to hospital, and enhance
quality of life or functional status in patients with coronary heart
disease. The programmes' impact on survival and recurrent infarctions, their cost effectiveness, and the optimal mix of components remain uncertain.
Evidence based cardiac rehabilitation programmes of varying intensity
improve morbidity and mortality in survivors of myocardial
infarction
Disease management approaches have a positive impact on processes of
care (prescription of proved efficacious drugs and cardiovascular risk
profiles of patients)
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+