The difference in blood pressure readings between arms and survival: primary care cohort study

addresses: Primary Care Research Group, Institute of Health Services Research, Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Exeter, Devon EX1 2LU, UK. [email protected]: PMCID: PMC3309155To determine whether a difference in systolic blood pressure readings between arms can predict a reduced event free survival after 10 years

Reduced dietary salt for the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2011 of the effects of reducing dietary salt intake, through advice to reduce salt intake or low-sodium salt substitution, on mortality and cardiovascular events. OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the long-term effects of advice and salt substitution, aimed at reducing dietary salt, on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity.2. To investigate whether a reduction in blood pressure is an explanatory factor in the effect of such dietary interventions on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the searches of CENTRAL (2013, Issue 4), MEDLINE (OVID, 1946 to April week 3 2013), EMBASE (OVID, 1947 to 30 April 2013) and CINAHL (EBSCO, inception to 1 April 2013) and last ran these on 1 May 2013. We also checked the references of included studies and reviews. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials fulfilled the following criteria: (1) randomised, with follow-up of at least six months, (2) the intervention was reduced dietary salt (through advice to reduce salt intake or low-sodium salt substitution), (3) participants were adults and (4) mortality or cardiovascular morbidity data were available. Two review authors independently assessed whether studies met these criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A single author extracted data and assessed study validity, and a second author checked this. We contacted trial authors where possible to obtain missing information. We extracted events and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria: three in normotensives (n = 3518) and five in hypertensives or mixed populations of normo- and hypertensives (n = 3766). End of trial follow-up ranged from six to 36 months and the longest observational follow-up (after trial end) was 12.7 years.The risk ratios (RR) for all-cause mortality in normotensives were imprecise and showed no evidence of reduction (end of trial RR 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.12, 60 deaths; longest follow-up RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.40, 79 deaths n=3518) or in hypertensives (end of trial RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15, 565 deaths; longest follow-up RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14, 674 deaths n=3085). There was weak evidence of benefit for cardiovascular mortality (hypertensives: end of trial RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.01, 106 events n=2656) and for cardiovascular events (hypertensives: end of trial RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.01, 194 events, four studies, n = 3397; normotensives: at longest follow-up RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.20, 200 events; hypertensives: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02, 192 events; pooled analysis of six trials RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.95, n = 5912). These findings were driven by one trial among retirement home residents that reduced salt intake in the kitchens of the homes, thereby not requiring individual behaviour change.Advice to reduce salt showed small reductions in systolic blood pressure (mean difference (MD) -1.15 mmHg, 95% CI -2.32 to 0.02 n=2079) and diastolic blood pressure (MD -0.80 mmHg, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.23 n=2079) in normotensives and greater reductions in systolic blood pressure in hypertensives (MD -4.14 mmHg, 95% CI -5.84 to -2.43 n=675), but no difference in diastolic blood pressure (MD -3.74 mmHg, 95% CI -8.41 to 0.93 n=675).Overall many of the trials failed to report sufficient detail to assess their potential risk of bias. Health-related quality of life was assessed in one trial in normotensives, which reported significant improvements in well-being but no data were presented. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite collating more event data than previous systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, there is insufficient power to confirm clinically important effects of dietary advice and salt substitution on cardiovascular mortality in normotensive or hypertensive populations. Our estimates of the clinical benefits from advice to reduce dietary salt are imprecise, but are larger than would be predicted from the small blood pressure reductions achieved. Further well-powered studies would be needed to obtain more precise estimates. Our findings do not support individual dietary advice as a means of restricting salt intake. It is possible that alternative strategies that do not require individual behaviour change may be effective and merit further trials

Reduced dietary salt for the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2011 of the effects of reducing dietary salt intake, through advice to reduce salt intake or low-sodium salt substitution, on mortality and cardiovascular events. 1. To assess the long-term effects of advice and salt substitution, aimed at reducing dietary salt, on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity. 2. To investigate whether a reduction in blood pressure is an explanatory factor in the effect of such dietary interventions on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. We updated the searches of CENTRAL (2013, Issue 4), MEDLINE (OVID, 1946 to April week 3 2013), EMBASE (OVID, 1947 to 30 April 2013) and CINAHL (EBSCO, inception to 1 April 2013) and last ran these on 1 May 2013. We also checked the references of included studies and reviews. We applied no language restrictions. Trials fulfilled the following criteria: (1) randomised, with follow-up of at least six months, (2) the intervention was reduced dietary salt (through advice to reduce salt intake or low-sodium salt substitution), (3) participants were adults and (4) mortality or cardiovascular morbidity data were available. Two review authors independently assessed whether studies met these criteria. A single author extracted data and assessed study validity, and a second author checked this. We contacted trial authors where possible to obtain missing information. We extracted events and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Eight studies met the inclusion criteria: three in normotensives (n = 3518) and five in hypertensives or mixed populations of normo- and hypertensives (n = 3766). End of trial follow-up ranged from six to 36 months and the longest observational follow-up (after trial end) was 12.7 years. The risk ratios (RR) for all-cause mortality in normotensives were imprecise and showed no evidence of reduction (end of trial RR 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.12, 60 deaths; longest follow-up RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.40, 79 deaths n = 3518) or in hypertensives (end of trial RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15, 565 deaths; longest follow-up RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14, 674 deaths n = 3085). There was weak evidence of benefit for cardiovascular mortality (hypertensives: end of trial RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.01, 106 events n = 2656) and for cardiovascular events (hypertensives: end of trial RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.01, 194 events, four studies, n = 3397; normotensives: at longest follow-up RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.20, 200 events; hypertensives: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02, 192 events; pooled analysis of six trials RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.95, n = 5912). These findings were driven by one trial among retirement home residents that reduced salt intake in the kitchens of the homes, thereby not requiring individual behaviour change. Advice to reduce salt showed small reductions in systolic blood pressure (mean difference (MD) -1.15 mmHg, 95% CI -2.32 to 0.02 n = 2079) and diastolic blood pressure (MD -0.80 mmHg, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.23 n = 2079) in normotensives and greater reductions in systolic blood pressure in hypertensives (MD -4.14 mmHg, 95% CI -5.84 to -2.43 n = 675), but no difference in diastolic blood pressure (MD -3.74 mmHg, 95% CI -8.41 to 0.93 n = 675). Overall many of the trials failed to report sufficient detail to assess their potential risk of bias. Health-related quality of life was assessed in one trial in normotensives, which reported significant improvements in well-being but no data were presented. Despite collating more event data than previous systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, there is insufficient power to confirm clinically important effects of dietary advice and salt substitution on cardiovascular mortality in normotensive or hypertensive populations. Our estimates of the clinical benefits from advice to reduce dietary salt are imprecise, but are larger than would be predicted from the small blood pressure reductions achieved. Further well-powered studies would be needed to obtain more precise estimates. Our findings do not support individual dietary advice as a means of restricting salt intake. It is possible that alternative strategies that do not require individual behaviour change may be effective and merit further trials

Nurse led interventions to improve control of blood pressure in people with hypertension: systematic review and meta-analysis

This is a freely-available open access publication. Please cite the published version which is available via the DOI link in this record.OBJECTIVE: To review trials of nurse led interventions for hypertension in primary care to clarify the evidence base, establish whether nurse prescribing is an important intervention, and identify areas requiring further study. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, British Nursing Index, Cinahl, Embase, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials of nursing interventions for hypertension compared with usual care in adults. DATA EXTRACTION: Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, percentages reaching target blood pressure, and percentages taking antihypertensive drugs. Intervention effects were calculated as relative risks or weighted mean differences, as appropriate, and sensitivity analysis by study quality was undertaken. DATA SYNTHESIS: Compared with usual care, interventions that included a stepped treatment algorithm showed greater reductions in systolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference -8.2 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval -11.5 to -4.9), nurse prescribing showed greater reductions in blood pressure (systolic -8.9 mm Hg, -12.5 to -5.3 and diastolic -4.0 mm Hg, -5.3 to -2.7), telephone monitoring showed higher achievement of blood pressure targets (relative risk 1.24, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.43), and community monitoring showed greater reductions in blood pressure (weighted mean difference, systolic -4.8 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval -7.0 to -2.7 and diastolic -3.5 mm Hg, -4.5 to -2.5). CONCLUSIONS: Nurse led interventions for hypertension require an algorithm to structure care. Evidence was found of improved outcomes with nurse prescribers from non-UK healthcare settings. Good quality evidence from UK primary health care is insufficient to support widespread employment of nurses in the management of hypertension within such healthcare systems.Scientific Foundation Board of the Royal College of General PractitionersSouth West GP Trus

Assessing the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of subcutaneous nerve stimulation in patients with predominant back pain due to failed back surgery syndrome (SubQStim study): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

This is a freely-available open access publication. Please cite the published version which is available via the DOI link in this record.Chronic radicular pain can be effectively treated with spinal cord stimulation, but this therapy is not always sufficient for chronic back pain. Subcutaneous nerve stimulation (SQS) refers to the placement of percutaneous leads in the subcutaneous tissue within the area of pain. Case series data show that failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients experience clinically important levels of pain relief following SQS and may also reduce their levels of analgesic therapy and experience functional well-being. However, to date, there is no randomized controlled trial evidence to support the use of SQS in FBSS.Medtronic Inc

Spinal cord stimulation for predominant low back pain in failed back surgery syndrome: study protocol for an international multicenter randomized controlled trial (PROMISE study)

Background: Although results of case series support the use of spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome patients with predominant low back pain, no confirmatory randomized controlled trial has been undertaken in this patient group to date. PROMISE is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group study designed to compare the clinical effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation plus optimal medical management with optimal medical management alone in patients with failed back surgery syndrome and predominant low back pain. Method/Design: Patients will be recruited in approximately 30 centers across Canada, Europe, and the United States. Eligible patients with low back pain exceeding leg pain and an average Numeric Pain Rating Scale score >= 5 for low back pain will be randomized 1:1 to spinal cord stimulation plus optimal medical management or to optimal medical management alone. The investigators will tailor individual optimal medical management treatment plans to their patients. Excluded from study treatments are intrathecal drug delivery, peripheral nerve stimulation, back surgery related to the original back pain complaint, and experimental therapies. Patients randomized to the spinal cord stimulation group will undergo trial stimulation, and if they achieve adequate low back pain relief a neurostimulation system using the Specify (R) 5-6-5 multi-column lead (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) will be implanted to capture low back pain preferentially in these patients. Outcome assessment will occur at baseline (pre-randomization) and at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months post randomization. After the 6-month visit, patients can change treatment to that received by the other randomized group. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with >= 50% reduction in low back pain at the 6-month visit. Additional outcomes include changes in low back and leg pain, functional disability, health-related quality of life, return to work, healthcare utilization including medication usage, and patient satisfaction. Data on adverse events will be collected. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Healthcare use data will be used to assess costs and long-term cost-effectiveness. Discussion: Recruitment began in January 2013 and will continue until 2016

Informing the design of a randomised controlled trial of an exercise-based programme for long term stroke survivors: lessons from a before-and-after case series study

Background: To inform the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of an exercise-based programme for long term stroke survivors, we conducted a mixed methods before-and-after case series with assessment at three time points. We evaluated Action for Rehabilitation from Neurological Injury (ARNI), a personalised, functionally-focussed programme. It was delivered through 24 hours of one-to-one training by an Exercise Professional (EP), plus at least 2 hours weekly unsupervised exercise, over 12- 14 weeks. Assessment was by patient-rated questionnaires addressing function, physical activity, confidence, fatigue and health-related quality of life; objective assessment of gait quality and speed; qualitative individual interviews conducted with participants. Data were collected at baseline, 3 months and 6 months. Fidelity and acceptability was assessed by participant interviews, audit of participant and EP records, and observation of training. Findings: Four of six enrolled participants completed the exercise programme. Quantitative data demonstrated little change across the sample, but marked changes on some measures for some individuals. Qualitative interviews suggested that small benefits in physical outcomes could be of great psychological significance to participants. Participant-reported fatigue levels commonly increased, and non-completers said they found the programme too demanding. Most key components of the intervention were delivered, but there were several potentially important departures from intervention fidelity. Discussion: The study provided data and experience that are helping to inform the design of an RCT of this intervention. It suggested the need for a broader recruitment strategy; indicated areas that could be explored in more depth in the qualitative component of the trial; and highlighted issues that should be addressed to enhance and evaluate fidelity, particularly in the preparation and monitoring of intervention providers. The experience illustrates the value of even small sample before-and-after studies in the development of trials of complex interventions.PenCLAHRC; NIH

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease

PublishedReviewThis review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 1. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.Background Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the single most common cause of death globally. However, with falling CHD mortality rates, an increasing number of people live with CHD and may need support to manage their symptoms and prognosis. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) aims to improve the health and outcomes of people with CHD. This is an update of a Cochrane systematic review previously published in 2011. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of exercise-based CR (exercise training alone or in combination with psychosocial or educational interventions) compared with usual care on mortality, morbidity and HRQL in patients with CHD. To explore the potential study level predictors of the effectiveness of exercise-based CR in patients with CHD. Search methods We updated searches from the previous Cochrane review, by searching Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2014) from December 2009 to July 2014. We also searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Science Citation Index Expanded (December 2009 to July 2014). Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise-based interventions with at least six months’ follow-up, compared with a no exercise control. The study population comprised men and women of all ages who have had a myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or who have angina pectoris, or coronary artery disease. We included RCTs that reported at least one of the following outcomes: mortality, MI, revascularisations, hospitalisations, health-related quality of life (HRQL), or costs. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on the above inclusion and exclusion criteria. One author extracted data from the included trials and assessed their risk of bias; a second review author checked data. We stratified meta-analysis by the duration of follow up of trials, i.e. short-term: 6 to 12 months, medium-term: 13 to 36 months, and long-term: > 3 years. Main results This review included 63 trials which randomised 14,486 people with CHD. This latest update identified 16 new trials (3872 participants). The population included predominantly post-MI and post-revascularisation patients and the mean age of patients within the trials ranged from 47.5 to 71.0 years.Women accounted for fewer than 15% of the patients recruited. Overall trial reporting was poor, although there was evidence of an improvement in quality of reporting in more recent trials. As we found no significant difference in the impact of exercise-based CR on clinical outcomes across follow-up, we focused on reporting findings pooled across all trials at their longest follow-up (median 12 months). Exercise-based CR reduced cardiovascular mortality compared with no exercise control (27 trials; risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.86). There was no reduction in total mortality with CR (47 trials, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04). The overall risk of hospital admissions was reduced with CR (15 trials; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.96) but there was no significant impact on the risk of MI (36 trials; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.04), CABG (29 trials; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16) or PCI (18 trials; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.04). There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity across trials for all event outcomes, and there was evidence of small study bias for MI and hospitalisation, but no other outcome. Predictors of clinical outcomes were examined across the longest follow-up of studies using univariate meta-regression. Results show that benefits in outcomes were independent of participants’ CHD case mix (proportion of patients with MI), type of CR (exercise only vs comprehensive rehabilitation) dose of exercise, length of follow-up, trial publication date, setting (centre vs home-based), study location (continent), sample size or risk of bias. Given the heterogeneity in outcome measures and reporting methods, meta-analysis was not undertaken for HRQL. In five out of 20 trials reporting HRQL using validated measures, there was evidence of significant improvement in most or all of the sub-scales with exercise-based CR compared to control at follow-up. Four trial-based economic evaluation studies indicated exercise-based CR to be a potentially cost-effective use of resources in terms of gain in quality-adjusted life years. The quality of the evidence for outcomes reported in the review was rated using the GRADE method. The quality of the evidence varied widely by outcome and ranged from low to moderate. Authors’ conclusions This updated Cochrane review supports the conclusions of the previous version of this review that, compared with no exercise control, exercise-based CR reduces the risk of cardiovascular mortality but not total mortality. We saw a significant reduction in the risk of hospitalisation with CR but not in the risk of MI or revascularisation. We identified further evidence supporting improved HRQL with exercise-based CR. More recent trials were more likely to be well reported and include older and female patients. However, the population studied in this review still consists predominantly of lower risk individuals following MI or revascularisation. Further well conducted RCTs are needed to assess the impact of exercise-based CR in higher risk CHD groups and also those presenting with stable angina. These trials should include validated HRQL outcome measures, explicitly report clinical event outcomes including mortality and hospital admissions, and assess costs and cost-effectiveness

The cost-effectiveness of exercise referral schemes

This is a freely-available open access publication. Please cite the published version which is available via the DOI link in this record.Exercise referral schemes (ERS) aim to identify inactive adults in the primary care setting. The primary care professional refers the patient to a third party service, with this service taking responsibility for prescribing and monitoring an exercise programme tailored to the needs of the patient. This paper examines the cost-effectiveness of ERS in promoting physical activity compared with usual care in primary care setting.NIHR Health Technology Assessment programm