OUP user menu

Two-year results of a controlled study of residential rehabilitation for patients treated with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. A randomized study of a multifactorial programme

C. Hofman-Bang , J. Lisspers , R. Nordlander , Å. Nygren , Ö. Sundin , A. Öhman , L. Rydén
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/euhj.1999.1544 1465-1474 First published online: 2 October 1999


Aims In a multifactorial lifestyle behaviour programme, of 2 years duration, to study the maintenance of achieved behaviour and risk factor-related changes.

Methods and Results Out of a consecutive population of 151 patients treated with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty under 65 years of age, 87 were randomly allocated to an intervention group (n=46) or to a control group (n=41). The programme started with a 4 week residential stay, which was focused on health education and the achievement of behaviour change. During the first year of follow-up, a maintenance programme included regular contacts with a nurse, while no further rehabilitative efforts were offered during the second year. One patient died (control). During the second year the proportion of hospitalized patients was lower in the intervention group (4% vs 20%;P<0·05). Patients in the intervention group improved several lifestyle dependent behaviours: diet (index at 0, 12 and 24 months): 10·5±3·4, 12·9±2·5 and 12·4±2·6 in the intervention group (I) vs 10·1±3·2, 10·7±3·0 and 11·8±3·2 in the control group (C);P<0·05, exercise sessions per week: 2·5±2·3, 4·5±1·9 and 4·4±2·1 (I) vs 3·1±2·2, 3·5±2·3 and 3·7±2·7 (C);P<0·05, and smoking; 18%, 6% and 9% (I) vs 12%, 21% and 18% (C);P<0·05. This corresponded to improvement in exercise capacity (0, 12 and 24 months): 156±42, 174±49 and 165±47W (I) vs 164±40, 163±49 and 156±48 watts (C);P<0·05. There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to serum cholesterol levels at 0 and 24 months: 5·4±0·8 and 5·2±0·9mmol.l−1(I) vs 5·4±1·0 and 4·9±0·9mmol.l−1(C); ns, low density lipoprotein cholesterol level: 3·6±0·8 and 3·4±0·8mmol.l−1(I) vs 3·7±0·9 and 3·3±0·7mmol.l−1(C); ns, triglyceride level: 2·2±1·6 and 1·8±1·3mmol.l−1(I) vs 2·2±1·4 and 1·6±0·6mmol.l−1(C); ns, body mass index (0, 12 and 24 months): 27·5±4·5, 27·0±4·3 and 27·4± 4·5kg.m−2(I) vs 26·8±2·8, 26·9±2·7 and 26·9± 3·2kg.m−2(C); ns, waist/hip ratio or blood pressure. The two groups did not differ in quality of life, or psychological factors. Return to work after 12 and 24 months was 74% and 78% (I) vs 68% and 61% (C); ns.

Conclusion This rehabilitation programme influenced important lifestyle behaviour and reduced some, but not all, important risk factors

  • Rehabilitation, risk factors, life style, behavioural modification