Investigating the use of smartphone technology for nutrition monitoring post-bariatric surgery

Optimising successful long-term outcomes of bariatric surgery is contingent on patient commitment to follow-up care. The reasons for lost to follow-up remain unclear, but might be due to patients not recognising the need for lifelong support from a dietitian. An original, online survey exploring technology use, communication preferences, nutrition monitoring methods, professional relationship expectations, reasons for lost to follow-up, smartphone and app use was developed and distributed to a convenience sample of specialist bariatric dietitians and bariatric patients. Recruitment methods included e-newsletters, social media and word of mouth. The survey completion rate was 85% (n = 50/59) for dietitians and 80% (n = 39/49) for patients. Smartphone ownership was 98% and 95% for dietitians and patients, respectively. Common reasons for lost to follow-up indicate that a traditional in-clinic setting could be a barrier. Ninety-one percent of dietitians prefer to see patients face-to-face in their clinic, while patients are open to a greater variety of communication methods including email, apps and messaging. Both cohorts recognised the potential for emerging technologies to be used in practice with 78% (n = 42) of dietitians already using apps in practice, 93% of these recommending apps to patients and 76% (n = 29) of patients using health apps. The survey found existing apps do not meet the needs of the respondents. This study provides the first insight into the potential use of mobile devices and apps by dietitians and bariatric patients. It would appear embracing emerging technology could improve engagement, communication and support between dietitian and patient allowing for greater monitoring of long-term clinical outcomes

Telehealth-delivered, Cardioprotective Diet and Exercise Program for Liver Transplant Recipients: A Randomized Feasibility Study

Background. Rapid excess weight gain and metabolic complications contribute to poor outcomes following liver transplant care. Providing specialist lifestyle intervention with equitable access is a challenge for posttransplant service delivery. Methods. This study investigated the feasibility of a 12-wk telehealth delivered lifestyle intervention for liver transplant recipients (randomized controlled trial with a delayed intervention control group). The intervention included 14 group sessions facilitated by nutrition and exercise specialists via video streaming telehealth and participants used their own devices. Feasibility was assessed across session attendance, the adequacy, acceptability, and confidence with the telehealth technology and adherence to diet (Mediterranean Diet Adherence Score). Secondary pooled analysis of effectiveness was determined from changes in quality of life and metabolic syndrome severity score. Results. Of the 35 participants randomized, dropout was 22.8% (n = 8) and overall session attendance rate was 60%. Confidence with and adequacy of home technology was rated high in 96% and 91% of sessions, respectively. Participants randomized to the intervention significantly improved Mediterranean Diet Adherence Score (2-point increase [95% confidence interval, 1.5-3.4] versus control 0 point change [95% confidence interval, –1.4 to 1.2]; P = 0.004). Intervention (within group) analysis found the intervention significantly decreased the metabolic syndrome severity score (–0.4 [95% confidence interval, –0.6 to –0.1] P = 0.01), and improved mental health-related quality of life (2.5 [95% confidence interval, 0.4-4.6] P = 0.03). Conclusions. A cardioprotective lifestyle intervention delivered via telehealth is feasible for liver transplant recipients and may improve access to specialist care to support metabolic health and wellness after transplant

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used