A mobile phone-based care model for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation: the care assessment platform (CAP)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cardiac rehabilitation programs offer effective means to prevent recurrence of a cardiac event, but poor uptake of current programs have been reported globally. Home based models are considered as a feasible alternative to avoid various barriers related to care centre based programs. This paper sets out the study design for a clinical trial seeking to test the hypothesis that these programs can be better and more efficiently supported with novel Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>We have integrated mobile phones and web services into a comprehensive home- based care model for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation. Mobile phones with a built-in accelerometer sensor are used to measure physical exercise and WellnessDiary software is used to collect information on patients' physiological risk factors and other health information. Video and teleconferencing are used for mentoring sessions aiming at behavioural modifications through goal setting. The mentors use web-portal to facilitate personal goal setting and to assess the progress of each patient in the program. Educational multimedia content are stored or transferred via messaging systems to the patients phone to be viewed on demand. We have designed a randomised controlled trial to compare the health outcomes and cost efficiency of the proposed model with a traditional community based rehabilitation program. The main outcome measure is adherence to physical exercise guidelines.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The study will provide evidence on using mobile phones and web services for mentoring and self management in a home-based care model targeting sustainable behavioural modifications in cardiac rehabilitation patients.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>The trial has been registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) with number ACTRN12609000251224.</p

The systematic guideline review: method, rationale, and test on chronic heart failure

Background: Evidence-based guidelines have the potential to improve healthcare. However, their de-novo-development requires substantial resources-especially for complex conditions, and adaptation may be biased by contextually influenced recommendations in source guidelines. In this paper we describe a new approach to guideline development-the systematic guideline review method (SGR), and its application in the development of an evidence-based guideline for family physicians on chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods: A systematic search for guidelines was carried out. Evidence-based guidelines on CHF management in adults in ambulatory care published in English or German between the years 2000 and 2004 were included. Guidelines on acute or right heart failure were excluded. Eligibility was assessed by two reviewers, methodological quality of selected guidelines was appraised using the AGREE instrument, and a framework of relevant clinical questions for diagnostics and treatment was derived. Data were extracted into evidence tables, systematically compared by means of a consistency analysis and synthesized in a preliminary draft. Most relevant primary sources were re-assessed to verify the cited evidence. Evidence and recommendations were summarized in a draft guideline. Results: Of 16 included guidelines five were of good quality. A total of 35 recommendations were systematically compared: 25/35 were consistent, 9/35 inconsistent, and 1/35 un-rateable (derived from a single guideline). Of the 25 consistencies, 14 were based on consensus, seven on evidence and four differed in grading. Major inconsistencies were found in 3/9 of the inconsistent recommendations. We re-evaluated the evidence for 17 recommendations (evidence-based, differing evidence levels and minor inconsistencies) - the majority was congruent. Incongruity was found where the stated evidence could not be verified in the cited primary sources, or where the evaluation in the source guidelines focused on treatment benefits and underestimated the risks. The draft guideline was completed in 8.5 man-months. The main limitation to this study was the lack of a second reviewer. Conclusion: The systematic guideline review including framework development, consistency analysis and validation is an effective, valid, and resource saving-approach to the development of evidence-based guidelines

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Broadening the reach of cardiac rehabilitation to rural and remote Australia

Copyright © 2003 European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier Science B. V.Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has an evidence base but traditional models may not readily apply to people living in rural and remote regions. Aim: To outline published comprehensive and non-hospital based CR models used for people discharged from hospital after a cardiac event that have potential relevance to those living in rural and remote areas in Australia. Methods: The PubMed database was searched using Medical subject headings (MeSH) terms and the key word ‘cardiac rehabilitation’ limited to clinical trials. Articles were retrieved if they included at least two components of CR and were not based in an outpatient setting. Results: No CR models specifically developed for rural and remote areas were identified. However, 14 studies were found that outlined 11 non-conventional comprehensive CR models. All provided CR in a home-based setting. Health professionals provided support via telephone contact or home visits, and via resources such as the Heart Manual. Reported outcomes from these CR programs varied: ranging from an increase in knowledge of risk factors, to improvements in physical activity, decreased risk factor profile, improved psychological and social functioning and reductions in health service costs and mortality. Conclusion: Home-based, CR models have the most substantive evidence base and, therefore the greatest potential to be developed and made accessible to eligible people living in rural and remote areas.Joanne Dollard, Jacquie Smith, David R Thompson and Simon Stewar

Additional file 2 of Breast cancer risks associated with missense variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes

Additional file 2

Headache onset after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Background Vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are used to reduce the risk of developing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Despite the significant benefits in terms of reduced risk of hospitalization and death, different adverse events may present after vaccination: among them, headache is one of the most common, but nowadays there is no summary presentation of its incidence and no description of its main features. Methods We searched PubMed and EMBASE covering the period between January 1st 2020 and August 6th, 2021, looking for record in English and with an abstract and using three main search terms (with specific variations): COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2; Vaccination; headache/adverse events. We selected manuscript including information on subjects developing headache after injection, and such information had to be derived from a structured form (i.e. no free reporting). Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Analyses were carried out by vaccine vs. placebo, by first vs. second dose, and by mRNA-based vs. “traditional” vaccines; finally, we addressed the impact of age and gender on post-vaccine headache onset. Results Out of 9338 records, 84 papers were included in the review, accounting for 1.57 million participants, 94% of whom received BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. Headache was generally the third most common AE: it was detected in 22% (95% CI 18–27%) of subjects after the first dose of vaccine and in 29% (95% CI 23–35%) after the second, with an extreme heterogeneity. Those receiving placebo reported headache in 10–12% of cases. No differences were detected across different vaccines or by mRNA-based vs. “traditional” ones. None of the studies reported information on headache features. A lower prevalence of headache after the first injection of BNT162b2 among older participants was shown. Conclusions Our results show that vaccines are associated to a two-fold risk of developing headache within 7 days from injection, and the lack of difference between vaccine types enable to hypothesize that headache is secondary to systemic immunological reaction than to a vaccine-type specific reaction. Some descriptions report onset within the first 24 h and that in around one-third of the cases, headache has migraine-like features with pulsating quality, phono and photophobia; in 40–60% of the cases aggravation with activity is observed. The majority of patients used some medication to treat headache, the one perceived as the most effective being acetylsalicylic acid

Headache onset after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are used to reduce the risk of developing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Despite the significant benefits in terms of reduced risk of hospitalization and death, different adverse events may present after vaccination: among them, headache is one of the most common, but nowadays there is no summary presentation of its incidence and no description of its main features. Methods We searched PubMed and EMBASE covering the period between January 1st 2020 and August 6th, 2021, looking for record in English and with an abstract and using three main search terms (with specific variations): COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2; Vaccination; headache/adverse events. We selected manuscript including information on subjects developing headache after injection, and such information had to be derived from a structured form (i.e. no free reporting). Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Analyses were carried out by vaccine vs. placebo, by first vs. second dose, and by mRNA-based vs. “traditional” vaccines; finally, we addressed the impact of age and gender on post-vaccine headache onset. Results Out of 9338 records, 84 papers were included in the review, accounting for 1.57 million participants, 94% of whom received BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. Headache was generally the third most common AE: it was detected in 22% (95% CI 18–27%) of subjects after the first dose of vaccine and in 29% (95% CI 23–35%) after the second, with an extreme heterogeneity. Those receiving placebo reported headache in 10–12% of cases. No differences were detected across different vaccines or by mRNA-based vs. “traditional” ones. None of the studies reported information on headache features. A lower prevalence of headache after the first injection of BNT162b2 among older participants was shown. Conclusions Our results show that vaccines are associated to a two-fold risk of developing headache within 7 days from injection, and the lack of difference between vaccine types enable to hypothesize that headache is secondary to systemic immunological reaction than to a vaccine-type specific reaction. Some descriptions report onset within the first 24 h and that in around one-third of the cases, headache has migraine-like features with pulsating quality, phono and photophobia; in 40–60% of the cases aggravation with activity is observed. The majority of patients used some medication to treat headache, the one perceived as the most effective being acetylsalicylic acid

Headache onset after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are used to reduce the risk of developing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Despite the significant benefits in terms of reduced risk of hospitalization and death, different adverse events may present after vaccination: among them, headache is one of the most common, but nowadays there is no summary presentation of its incidence and no description of its main features. Methods We searched PubMed and EMBASE covering the period between January 1st 2020 and August 6th, 2021, looking for record in English and with an abstract and using three main search terms (with specific variations): COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2; Vaccination; headache/adverse events. We selected manuscript including information on subjects developing headache after injection, and such information had to be derived from a structured form (i.e. no free reporting). Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Analyses were carried out by vaccine vs. placebo, by first vs. second dose, and by mRNA-based vs. “traditional” vaccines; finally, we addressed the impact of age and gender on post-vaccine headache onset. Results Out of 9338 records, 84 papers were included in the review, accounting for 1.57 million participants, 94% of whom received BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. Headache was generally the third most common AE: it was detected in 22% (95% CI 18–27%) of subjects after the first dose of vaccine and in 29% (95% CI 23–35%) after the second, with an extreme heterogeneity. Those receiving placebo reported headache in 10–12% of cases. No differences were detected across different vaccines or by mRNA-based vs. “traditional” ones. None of the studies reported information on headache features. A lower prevalence of headache after the first injection of BNT162b2 among older participants was shown. Conclusions Our results show that vaccines are associated to a two-fold risk of developing headache within 7 days from injection, and the lack of difference between vaccine types enable to hypothesize that headache is secondary to systemic immunological reaction than to a vaccine-type specific reaction. Some descriptions report onset within the first 24 h and that in around one-third of the cases, headache has migraine-like features with pulsating quality, phono and photophobia; in 40–60% of the cases aggravation with activity is observed. The majority of patients used some medication to treat headache, the one perceived as the most effective being acetylsalicylic acid