Trial reportHeart (British Cardiac Society)2020
Lifestyle modification in older versus younger patients with coronary artery disease.
Trial report in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis testing the effect of lifestyle modification and medication optimization programs on cholesterol and blood pressure in patients with cardiovascular disease.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Effect of Dietary or Supplemental Vitamin C Intake on Vitamin C Levels in Patients with and without Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review.Nutrients · 2021Pooled it
- An Intervention Program Using the Health Belief Model to Modify Lifestyle in Coronary Heart Disease: Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2024Trial
- The Influence of Hybrid Comprehensive Telerehabilitation on Anxiety in Heart Failure Patients: The TELEREH-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2024Trial
- Long-term Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Omicron COVID-19 and Elevated Cardiac Biomarkers: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study in Shanghai, China.International journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Association between cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and clinical parameters in post-PCI patients with coronary artery disease from Fujian, China.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Impact of specialized nursing outpatient case management on post-coronary artery bypass grafting patients.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- The effects of CPET-guided cardiac rehabilitation on exercise tolerance in older persons with CHD after PCI.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Hypertensive heart disease: risk factors, complications and mechanisms.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Management of Coronary Artery Disease in the Elderly.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2022Article
- Cardiac rehabilitation in older adults: is it just lifestyle?Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2020Article
- Spirituality, a Neglected Dimension in Improving the Lifestyle of Coronary Artery Patients by Nurses: A Scoping Review.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the treatment effect on lifestyle-related risk factors (LRFs) in older (≥65 years) versus younger (<65 years) patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) in The Randomised Evaluation of Secondary Prevention by Outpatient Nurse SpEcialists 2 (RESPONSE-2) trial.
methodsThe RESPONSE-2 trial was a community-based lifestyle intervention trial (n=824) comparing nurse-coordinated referral with a comprehensive set of three lifestyle interventions (physical activity, weight reduction and/or smoking cessation) to usual care. In the current analysis, our primary outcome was the proportion of patients with improvement at 12 months follow-up (n=711) in ≥1 LRF stratified by age.
resultsAt baseline, older patients (n=245, mean age 69.2±3.9 years) had more adverse cardiovascular risk profiles and comorbidities than younger patients (n=579, mean age 53.7±6.6 years). There was no significant variation on the treatment effect according to age (p value treatment by age=0.45, OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.31). However, older patients were more likely to achieve ≥5% weight loss (OR old 5.58, 95% CI 2.77 to 11.26 vs OR young 1.57, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.49, p=0.003) and younger patients were more likely to show non-improved LRFs (OR old 0.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.67 vs OR young 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.26, p=0.01).
conclusionDespite more adverse cardiovascular risk profiles and comorbidities among older patients, nurse-coordinated referral to a community-based lifestyle intervention was at least as successful in improving LRFs in older as in younger patients. Higher age alone should not be a reason to withhold lifestyle interventions in patients with CAD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.