Key result
Cardiovascular risk management by practice nurses supported by self-monitoring did not significantly reduce the SCORE 10-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease compared to standard care (difference 0.2%, 95% CI -0.6 to 1.1).
Why the study?
Does the addition of pro-active counseling and self-monitoring to standard treatment by practice nurses improve cardiovascular risk scores in high-risk primary care patients?
Population
179 men aged 50-75 years and women aged 55-75 years without a history of cardiovascular disease or diabetes…
Comparison
Pro-active counseling and self-monitoring added… vs Standard guideline-directed treatment conducted…
Design
RCT, randomized into two groups
Follow-up
one year
Authors
Loading...
Does not support adding self-monitoring to nurse-led care; challenges expectations of benefit in primary cardiovascular prevention.
RCT (n=179)
Open-label
Computer generated random numbers
Yes
Does the addition of pro-active counseling and self-monitoring to standard treatment by practice nurses improve cardiovascular risk scores in high-risk primary care patients?
Mean Difference: 0.2 (95% CI -0.6–1.1)
Absolute Event Rate: -1.8% vs -1.6%
Adding self-monitoring and proactive counseling to standard practice nurse-led cardiovascular risk management does not significantly improve cardiovascular risk scores despite increased healthcare utilization.
Tiessen et al. (2012) conducted an RCT in Elevated cardiovascular risk (n=179). Pro-active counseling and self-monitoring (pedometer, weighing scale and/or blood pressure device) by practice nurses vs. Standard treatment according to guidelines by practice nurses was evaluated on SCORE (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation) 10-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease (MD 0.2%, 95% CI -0.6-1.1). Cardiovascular risk management by practice nurses supported by self-monitoring did not significantly reduce the SCORE 10-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease compared to standard care (difference 0.2%, 95% CI -0.6 to 1.1).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: