Effectiveness of the continuing care model for improving quality of life, cardiac function and outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease combined with heart failure after percutaneous coronary intervention: A retrospective study

TL;DR

This study shows that continuing care after heart procedures improves quality of life and heart function in patients with heart disease and heart failure.

Contribution

The study demonstrates that a continuing care model reduces adverse events and improves outcomes in CHD patients with heart failure after PCI.

Findings

Continuing care improved quality of life scores and cardiac function metrics compared to routine care.

Continuing care reduced the incidence of ventricular remodeling and major adverse cardiovascular events.

Patients in the continuing care group had better six-minute walk test results and lower NT-proBNP levels.

Abstract

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the mainstay for coronary heart disease (CHD) treatment, is associated with some adverse cardiovascular events (ACEs). This study aimed to assess the impact of different nursing care models on clinical outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) complicated by heart failure (HF) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

This was a single-center retrospective observational study conducted at the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Affiliated Jinhua Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, involving 183 patients diagnosed with CHD combined with HF who underwent PCI between May 2021 and May 2023. Patients were categorized into a continuing care group or a routine care group according to the post-PCI care model they had received. Quality of life was assessed using the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile II (HPLP-II) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36). Cardiac function was evaluated through the six minutes’ walk test (6-MWT), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. All participants were followed up for six months after PCI to record ventricular remodeling and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs).

After six months of follow-up, the continuing care group showed significantly higher HPLP-II and SF-36 scores, LVEF, and 6-MWT results, and lower NT-proBNP levels than the routine care group. Compared with routine care, continuing care was associated with a significantly lower incidence of ventricular remodeling (17.20% vs. 30.00%) and MACEs (44.09% vs. 66.67%).

Continuing care has the potential to enhance quality of life and cardiac function in patients with CHD and HF following PCI while reducing the incidence of ventricular remodeling and MACEs.

Note: A continuing care team was established to assess the health status of CHD patients with heart failure after PCI and propose corresponding intervention strategies.

Figures