Coronary atherosclerosis progression in patients after coronary stenting, depending on a cardiology follow-up strategy

Aim. To compare the prevalence of coronary atherosclerosis in patients after coronary stenting (CS) receiving outpatient and remote cardiology follow-up during a one-year study.

Material and methods. We enrolled 279 patients aged 61,5±9,5 years with class ≥II stable angina or silent ischemia after CS. Three groups were formed: group 1 (n=96) — outpatient visits before CS, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after CS. Group 2 (n=95) — remote monitoring: patients were followed up by a primary care physician with the involvement of a cardiologist via remote communication (e-mail, telephone, Skype) 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after CS. Group 3 (n=88) were followed up by a primary care physician and contacted with the study coordinator before and 12 months after CS. After 12 months, all patients underwent stress-induced myocardial ischemia testing. In case of a positive or uncertain test result, coronary angiography (CA) was performed.

Results. Stress-induced myocardial ischemia 12 months after CS was verified in 58 patients (21%): 19 patients (19,8%) — group 1; 9 patients (9,5%) — group 2; 30 patients (34,1%) — group 3 (p<0,05). Repeat CA was performed in 96 patients (34,4% of the total number of patients). Restenosis was detected in 8 (2,9%) patients, coronary atherosclerosis progression — in 38 (13,6%), combination of restenosis and atherosclerosis progression — in 4 (1,4%) patients. Coronary atherosclerosis progression was significantly more frequent in group 3: 10,4%, 9,5% and 21,6% in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively (p<0,05). The incidence of stent restenosis was comparable: 2,1%, 3,2% and 3,5% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

Conclusion. Coronary atherosclerosis progression was the main reason for repeated revascularizations 12 months after the CS. Outpatient and remote cardiology follow-up is associated with a lower incidence of coronary atherosclerosis progression and repeated CA during 12-month follow-up after CS.

1. Alekyan BG, Grigor’yan AM, Staferov AV, Karapetyan NG. Endovascular diagnostics and treatment in the Russian Federation (2017). Endovaskulyarnaya Khirurgiya (Russian Journal of Endovascular Surgery). 2018;2(5):93-240. (In Russ.)

2. Sedlis SP, Hartigan PM, Teo KK, et al. Effect of PCI on Long-Term Survival in Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(20):1937-46. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1505532.

3. Kruse CS, Krowski N, Rodriguez B, Tran L, Vela J, Brooks M. Telehealth and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and narrative analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e016242. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016242.

4. Wildevuur SE, Simonse LWL. Information and communication technology-enabled person-centered care for the “big five” chronic conditions: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(3):e77. doi:10.2196/jmir.3687.

5. Speyer R, Denman D, Wilkes-Gillan S, et al. Effects of telehealth by allied health professionals and nurses in rural and remote areas: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Rehabil Med. 2018;50(3):225-35. doi:10.2340/16501977-2297.

6. Brouwers RWM, van Exel HJ, van Hal JMC, et al. Cardiac telerehabilitation as an alternative to centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Neth Heart J. 2020;28(9):443-51. doi:10.1007/s12471-020-01432-y.

7. Hamine S, Gerth-Guyette E, Faulx D, et al. Impact of mHealth chronic disease management on treatment adherence and patient outcomes: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e52. doi:10.2196/jmir.3951.

8. Johnston N, Bodegard J, Jerström S, et al. Effects of interactive patient smartphone support app on drug adherence and lifestyle changes in myocardial infarction patients: A randomized study. Am Heart J. 2016;178:85-94. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2016.05.005.

9. Ma J, Ge C, Shi Y, et al. Chinese Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation Model Delivered by Smartphone Interaction Improves Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:731557. doi:10.3389/fcvm.2021.731557.

10. Blasco A, Carmona M, Fernández-Lozano I, et al. Evaluation of a telemedicine service for the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2012;32(1):25-31. doi:10.1097/HCR.0b013e3182343aa7.

11. Rawstorn JC, Gant N, Direito A, et al. Telehealth exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart Br Card Soc. 2016;102(15):1183-92. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308966.

12. Vernooij JW, Kaasjager HA, van der Graaf Y, et al. Internet based vascular risk factor management for patients with clinically manifest vascular disease: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2012;344:e3750. doi:10.1136/bmj.e3750.

13. Turan Kavradim S, Özer Z, Boz İ. Effectiveness of telehealth interventions as a part of secondary prevention in coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Caring Sci. 2020;34(3):585-603. doi:10.1111/scs.12785.

14. Skobel E, Knackstedt C, Martinez-Romero A, et al. Internet-based training of coronary artery patients: the Heart Cycle Trial. Heart Vessels. 2017;32(4):408-18. doi:10.1007/s00380-016-0897-8.

15. Wu C, Li Y, Chen J. Hybrid versus traditional cardiac rehabilitation models: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Kardiol Pol. 2018;76(12):1717-24. doi:10.5603/KP.a2018.0175.

16. Huang K, Liu W, He D, et al. Telehealth interventions versus center-based cardiac rehabilitation of coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2015;22(8):959-71. doi:10.1177/2047487314561168.

17. Devi R, Singh SJ, Powell J, et al. Internet-based interventions for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(12):CD009386. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009386.pub2.

18. Polinski JM, Barker T, Gagliano N, et al. Patients’ Satisfaction with and Preference for Telehealth Visits. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(3):269-75. doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3489-x.