[Application of an intervention plan based on unplanned readmission risk model in the rehabilitation of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with cardiogenic shock after percutaneous coronary intervention].

OBJECTIVE

To study and analyze the application effect of intervention plan based on unplanned readmission risk model (LACE) in the rehabilitation of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated with cardiac shock (CS) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

Ninety-three patients with AMI complicated with CS who received PCI in Tianjin Union Medical Center from January 2019 to December 2020 were enrolled. The patients were divided into LACE intervention group (n = 46) and routine intervention group (n = 47) according to the different nursing intervention methods. The patients in the routine intervention group received routine interventions, including drug care, diet care, psychological care, health education and telephone follow-up, while those in the LACE intervention group were assessed for the risk of LACE, and then intervention measures were formulated according to the score of LACE index, including strengthening risk awareness, life behavior, daily life ability, self-care ability, health recovery and health needs. The follow-up period in both groups was 3 months. The changes of cardiac function, incidence of adverse cardiac events, readmission rate, self-management ability after intervention and quality of life level before and after intervention were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in cardiac function or quality of life before intervention between the two groups. After intervention for 3 months, the cardiac function and quality of life in the two groups were improved as compared with those before intervention. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in the LACE intervention group was significantly higher than that in the routine intervention group (0.533±0.076 vs. 0.492±0.072, P < 0.05), the left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) was significantly lower than that in the routine intervention group (mm: 47.09±7.01 vs. 53.23±7.15, P < 0.01), and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-brief (WHOQOL-BREF) score was also significantly higher than that in the routine intervention group (66.32±6.19 vs. 55.79±7.26, P < 0.01). The scores of self-management ability in the coronary heart disease self-management scale (CSMS) after intervention in the LACE intervention group were significantly higher than those in the routine intervention group (adverse hobbies score: 17.37±3.24 vs. 14.21±2.73, symptoms score: 14.82±3.11 vs. 10.56±2.65, emotional cognition score: 16.17±2.83 vs. 12.95±2.41, first aid score: 11.85±1.94 vs. 10.62±1.56, disease knowledge score: 15.58±2.73 vs. 12.68±2.61, daily life score: 17.80±2.61 vs. 14.33±2.36, treatment compliance score: 11.47±1.84 vs. 8.56±1.23, all P < 0.01). The incidence of adverse cardiac events and readmission rate in the LACE intervention group were significantly lower than those in the routine intervention group (10.87% vs. 29.79%, 4.35% vs. 17.02%, both P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention plan based on LACE risk model can effectively promote postoperative rehabilitation of patients with AMI complicated with CS after PCI, and also help to improve patients' self-management ability and quality of life, which is worthy of clinical promotion and application.