Key result
Within 2 years of hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, 88% of employed patients returned to work, but 36% had not returned to their pre-ACS work levels.
Observational (n=84)
No
A significant proportion (36%) of employed ACS survivors do not return to their pre-ACS work levels within 2 years, primarily hindered by physical and mental incapacity.
Supports routine work capacity assessment after ACS; leaves open prospective studies on modifiable barriers to full reintegration.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the time perspective of return to work and the factors that facilitate and hinder return to work in a group of survivors of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: Retrospective semi-structured telephone survey 2 to 3 years after hospitalization with 84 employed Dutch ACS-patients from one academic medical hospital. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent of patients returned to work within 3 months, whereas at least 88% returned to work once within 2 years. Two years after hospitalization, 12% of ACS patients had not returned to work at all, and 24% were working, but not at pre-ACS levels. For all ACS-patients, the most mentioned categories of facilitating factors to return to work were having no complaints and not having signs or symptoms of heart disease. Physical incapacity, co-morbidity, and mental incapacity were the top 3 categories of hindering factors against returning to work. CONCLUSION: Within 2 years, 36% of the patients had not returned to work at their pre-ACS levels. Disease factors, functional capacity, environmental factors, and personal factors were listed as affecting subjects' work ability level.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Slebus et al. (2012) conducted an observational in Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (n=84). Acute coronary syndrome was evaluated on Return to work within 2 years. Within 2 years of hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, 88% of employed patients returned to work, but 36% had not returned to their pre-ACS work levels.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: