Key result
Following percutaneous coronary intervention, Norwegian patients primarily visited general practitioners while Danish patients used outpatient clinics, yet patients in both countries preferred physical activity-based follow-up and reported decreasing information needs over time.
Why the study?
Few patients achieve full CAD risk factor control and post-PCI follow-up varies, prompting a description and comparison of health service use, follow-up preferences, and informational needs between two countries with differing follow-up practices.
Cohort (n=3,417)
Yes
Despite differing national follow-up practices after PCI, patients share similar preferences for information and follow-up, highlighting a universal need for early engagement when motivation is highest.
Patient preferences for post-PCI follow-up align across countries despite service differences; hypothesis-generating for early interventions, needs prospective confirmation.
OBJECTIVE: Few patients achieve full control of their coronary artery disease (CAD) risk factors. Follow-up, such as cardiac rehabilitation, is important to increase adherence to lifestyle changes and treatment, to improve the patient's risk profile, and to treat established complications of CAD clinical events. However, the type of follow-up patients receive varies. Therefore, the aim of this research note was to describe and compare patients' self-reported use of health services, the type of follow-up patients reported to prefer, and the type of information patients reported to be important, in two countries with different follow-up practices after PCI. RESULTS: We included 3417 patients in Norway and Denmark, countries with different follow-up strategies after PCI. The results showed large differences between the countries regarding health services used. In Denmark the most frequently used health services were consultations at outpatient clinics followed by visits to the general practitioner and visits to the fitness centre, whereas in Norway visits to the general practitioner were most common, followed by rehospitalisation and no follow-up used. However, patients found the same type of follow-up and information important in both countries. Patients' perceived need for follow-up and information decreased over time, suggesting a need for early follow-up when the patients are motivated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03810612 (18/01/2019).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hjertvikrem et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease after percutaneous coronary intervention (n=3,417). Follow-up practices after PCI vs. Between-country comparison (Norway vs Denmark) was evaluated on Self-reported use of health services, preferred follow-up, and important information at 2, 6, and 12 months. Following percutaneous coronary intervention, Norwegian patients primarily visited general practitioners while Danish patients used outpatient clinics, yet patients in both countries preferred physical activity-based follow-up and reported decreasing information needs over time.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: