Does a 6-month telemedicine-supported lifestyle change programme improve cardiovascular risk scores and blood pressure in patients at risk for cardiovascular diseases?
A 6-month telemedicine-supported lifestyle intervention significantly improves blood pressure, exercise capacity, and cardiovascular risk scores in at-risk patients.
BACKGROUND: Technology and information systems enabling transmission of patients' data and ability to provide and exchange professional support remotely to the general practitioners can improve quality and continuity of care. DESIGN: We set up a programme of primary prevention in 27 patients at risk for cardiovascular diseases by using Telemedicine Service for 6 months. METHODS: Telemedicine Service enlisted the involvement of physicians and nurse-tutors. The following cardiovascular activity markers were assessed: (i) cardiovascular risk cards (Framingham Study and Progetto CUORE); (ii) blood pressure; (iii) physical activity (three sessions of bicycle exercise training and calisthenic exercises a week); and (iv) questionnaires on stress and quality of life. RESULTS: Both cardiovascular risk cards showed a statistically significant reduction of the score (p < 0.05). Systolic and diastolic blood pressures showed a statistically significant reduction (128 ± 10 mmHg vs. 121 ± 9 mmHg, p = 0.04; 80 ± 8 mmHg vs. 73 ± 7 mmHg, p = 0.001). There was a noticeable increase in patient compliance for reporting blood pressure data. 89% of patients complied with the physical activity programme. Effort test significantly increased from 11.4 ± 3.5 to 12.7 ± 3.4 min (p = 0.02). There was a significant improvement in physical health (p = 0.04) and 85% of patients were satisfied with the service. CONCLUSIONS: A home multidisciplinary programme for primary cardiovascular disease prevention is simple, efficacious, and very well accepted by the patients with the majority of patients showing reduction in cardiovascular risk scores.
Bernocchi et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: