One-year follow-up of a therapeutic lifestyle intervention targeting cardiovascular disease risk - PubMed (original) (raw)

Randomized Controlled Trial

. 2007 Oct 9;177(8):859-65.

doi: 10.1503/cmaj.061059.

Affiliations

Randomized Controlled Trial

One-year follow-up of a therapeutic lifestyle intervention targeting cardiovascular disease risk

Andrew Wister et al. CMAJ. 2007.

Abstract

Background: In this study, we tested the efficacy of a low-intensity lifestyle intervention aimed at reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease among mid-life individuals.

Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in which participants were randomly assigned either to receive a health report card with counselling (from a Telehealth nurse) on smoking, exercise, nutrition and stress or to receive usual care. The patients were divided into 2 groups on the basis of risk: the primary prevention group, with a Framingham risk score of 10% or higher (intervention, n = 157; control, n = 158), and the secondary prevention group, who had a diagnosis of coronary artery disease (intervention, n = 153; control, n = 143). The primary outcome was a change in the Framingham global risk score between baseline and 1-year follow-up. Data were analyzed separately for the 2 prevention groups using an intention-to-treat analysis controlling for covariates.

Results: Within the primary prevention group, there were statistically significant changes for the treatment group relative to the controls, from baseline to year 1, in Framingham score (intervention, -3.10 [95% confidence interval (CI) -3.98 to -2.22]; control, -1.30 [95% CI -2.18 to -0.42]; p < 0.01) and scores for total cholesterol (intervention, -0.41 [95% CI -0.59 to -0.23]; control, -0.14 [95% CI -0.32 to 0.04]; p < 0.05), systolic blood pressure (intervention, -7.49 [95% CI -9.97 to -5.01]; control, -3.58 [95% CI -6.08 to -1.08]; p < 0.05), nutrition level (intervention, 0.30 [95% CI 0.13 to 0.47]; control, -0.05 [95% CI -0.22 to 0.12]; p < 0.01), and health confidence (intervention, 0.20 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.31]; control, 0.04 [95% CI -0.07 to 0.15]; p < 0.05), with adjustment for covariates. No significant changes in outcome variables were found for the secondary prevention group.

Interpretation: We found evidence for the efficacy of an intervention addressing multiple risk factors for primary prevention at 1 year using Framingham risk score report cards and telephone counselling. (Requirement for clinical trial registration waived [enrolment completed before requirement became applicable].).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

None

Figure 1: Flow of patients through the trial. R = randomization. *Data were imputed for the patients lost to follow-up.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. The growing burden of heart disease and stroke in Canada. Ottawa: The Foundation; 2003.
    1. Chen J, Millar WJ. Are recent cohorts healthier than their predecessors? Health Rep 2000;11(4):9-23. - PubMed
    1. Wister AV. Baby boomer health dynamics: How are we aging? Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2005.
    1. DeBusk RF, Miller NH, Superko R, et al. A case-management system for coronary risk factor modification after acute myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med 1994;120:721-9. - PubMed
    1. Gordon NF, Salmon RD, Franklin BA, et al. Effectiveness of therapeutic lifestyle changes in patients with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and/or hyperglycemia. Am J Cardiol 2004;94:1558-61. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources