Pilote L, Thomas R J, Dennis C, Goins P, Houston-Miller N, Kraemer H, Leong C, Berger W E, Lew H, Heller R S
Stanford University School of Medicine, California.
Ann Intern Med. 1992 Sep 1;117(5):383-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-117-5-383.
To evaluate the effectiveness of practice guidelines for return to work after acute myocardial infarction when disseminated from a university-based setting to a practice-based setting.
Randomized clinical trial.
A total of 187 patients with uncomplicated acute myocardial infarction.
Patients were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 95) or to usual care (n = 92). The intervention consisted of a treadmill test, a counseling session based on the test results, and a consultation letter from a cardiologist to the primary care physician. Individualized recommendations for the timing of return to work, contained in the consultation letter, were based on the patient's risk for recurrent cardiac events.
Questionnaire, chart review, and a phone interview documented the timing of return to work and the rates of cardiac death, coronary angioplasty, coronary artery surgery, and recurrent myocardial infarction.
Median intervals between acute myocardial infarction and return to work were similar in both groups (intervention, 54 days; usual care, 67 days; P greater than 0.2). Among patients without myocardial ischemia, however, the interval was shorter in the intervention group than in the usual care group (38 days compared with 65 days, respectively, P = 0.008). Among patients with myocardial ischemia, intervals were similar in both groups (80 days compared with 76 days, respectively, P greater than 0.2).
Practice guidelines developed in a university-based setting were not as successful in hastening return to work after uncomplicated acute myocardial infarction when tested in a practice-based setting. Physicians' reluctance to follow guidelines for patients with myocardial ischemia reflected their concern with prognosis even though medical outcome was good.
评估从大学附属医院环境推广至基层医疗环境的急性心肌梗死后恢复工作实践指南的有效性。
随机临床试验。
总共187例无并发症的急性心肌梗死患者。
患者被随机分为干预组(n = 95)或常规治疗组(n = 92)。干预措施包括一次跑步机测试、基于测试结果的咨询会议以及心脏病专家给初级保健医生的咨询信。咨询信中包含的关于恢复工作时间的个性化建议基于患者复发性心脏事件的风险。
通过问卷调查、病历审查和电话访谈记录恢复工作的时间以及心脏死亡、冠状动脉血管成形术、冠状动脉搭桥手术和复发性心肌梗死的发生率。
两组急性心肌梗死至恢复工作的中位间隔时间相似(干预组为54天;常规治疗组为67天;P>0.2)。然而,在没有心肌缺血的患者中,干预组的间隔时间比常规治疗组短(分别为38天和65天,P = 0.008)。在有心肌缺血的患者中,两组的间隔时间相似(分别为80天和76天,P>0.2)。
在大学附属医院环境中制定的实践指南,在基层医疗环境中进行测试时,对于加速无并发症急性心肌梗死后恢复工作并不那么成功。医生不愿遵循针对心肌缺血患者的指南,反映了他们对预后的担忧,尽管医疗结果良好。