Santschi Valérie, Wuerzner Gregoire, Pais Bruno, Chiolero Arnaud, Schaller Philippe, Cloutier Lyne, Paradis Gilles, Burnier Michel
La Source, School of Nursing Sciences, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Service of Nephrology and Hypertension, Lausanne University Hospital, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Oct 25;8:760662. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.760662. eCollection 2021.
We evaluated the effect on long term blood pressure (BP) of an interprofessional team-based care (TBC) intervention, involving nurses, pharmacists, and physicians, compared to usual care. We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled study in ambulatory clinics and community pharmacies in Switzerland (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02511093). Uncontrolled treated hypertensive patients were randomized to TBC or usual care (UC). In the TBC group, nurses and pharmacists met patients every 6 weeks to measure BP, assess lifestyle, support medication adherence, and provide health education for 6 months. After each visit, they wrote a report to the physician who could adjust antihypertensive therapy. The outcome was the intention-to-treat difference in mean daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) and control (<135/85 mmHg) at 6 and 12 months. Eighty-nine patients (60 men/29 women; mean (SD) age: 61(12) year) were randomized to TBC ( = 43) or UC ( = 46). At baseline, mean (SD) BP was 144(10)/90(8) mmHg and 147(12)/87(11) mmHg in the TBC and UC groups. At 6 months, the between-groups difference in daytime systolic ABPM was-3 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI):-10 to +4; = 0.45]; at 12 months, this difference was-7 mmHg [95% CI:-13 to-2; = 0.01]. At 6 months, the between-groups difference in daytime diastolic ABPM was +2 mmHg [95% CI:-1 to +6; = 0.20]; at 12 months, this difference was-2 mmHg [95% CI:-5 to +2; 0.42]. Upon adjustment for baseline covariates including baseline BP, the between-groups differences at 6 and 12 months were maintained. At 6 months, there was no difference in BP control. At 12 months, the TBC group tended to have a better control in systolic BP ( = 0.07) but not in diastolic BP ( = 0.33). While there was not significant effect on BP at 6 months of follow-up, the TBC intervention can help decrease long-term systolic BP among uncontrolled hypertensive patients.
我们评估了与常规护理相比,由护士、药剂师和医生组成的跨专业团队护理(TBC)干预措施对长期血压(BP)的影响。我们在瑞士的门诊诊所和社区药房进行了一项实用的随机对照研究(ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02511093)。未接受控制治疗的高血压患者被随机分为TBC组或常规护理(UC)组。在TBC组中,护士和药剂师每6周与患者会面一次,测量血压、评估生活方式、支持药物依从性并提供6个月的健康教育。每次就诊后,他们会撰写一份报告给医生,医生可据此调整抗高血压治疗方案。研究结果是6个月和12个月时平均日间动态血压测量(ABPM)和血压控制(<135/85 mmHg)的意向性治疗差异。89名患者(60名男性/29名女性;平均(标准差)年龄:61(12)岁)被随机分为TBC组(n = 43)或UC组(n = 46)。基线时,TBC组和UC组的平均(标准差)血压分别为144(10)/90(8)mmHg和147(12)/87(11)mmHg。6个月时,两组间日间收缩压ABPM的差异为-3 mmHg [95%置信区间(CI):-10至+4;P = 0.45];12个月时,该差异为-7 mmHg [95% CI:-13至-2;P = 0.01]。6个月时,两组间日间舒张压ABPM的差异为+2 mmHg [95% CI:-1至+6;P = 0.20];12个月时,该差异为-2 mmHg [95% CI:-5至+2;P = 0.42]。在对包括基线血压在内的基线协变量进行调整后,6个月和12个月时的组间差异得以维持。6个月时,血压控制方面无差异。12个月时,TBC组在收缩压控制方面倾向于更好(P = 0.07),但在舒张压控制方面并非如此(P = 0.33)。虽然随访6个月时对血压没有显著影响,但TBC干预措施有助于降低未控制高血压患者的长期收缩压。