EBM

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

Evidence-Based Medicine 2007;12:113; doi:10.1136/ebm.12.4.113
Copyright © 2007 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bentz, C. J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bentz, C. J

Therapeutics

An intensive smoking cessation intervention reduced hospital admissions and mortality in high risk smokers with CVD

Mohiuddin SM, Mooss AN, Hunter CB, et al. Intensive smoking cessation intervention reduces mortality in high-risk smokers with cardiovascular disease. Chest 2007;131:446–52.[CrossRef][Medline]

Q In high risk smokers hospitalized for cardiovascular disease, does an intensive behavioural plus pharmacotherapy smoking cessation intervention plus usual care after discharge reduce hospital admissions and mortality more than usual care alone?

Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ******{star} Internal medicine ******{star} Cardiology ******{star} Respirology ******{star}

Key Words: behaviour therapy • bupropion • cardiovascular diseases • directive counselling • dopamine uptake inhibitors • smoking cessation

METHODS
Formula Design: randomised controlled trial.

Formula Allocation: {not concealed*}{dagger}.

Formula Blinding: unblinded.*

Formula Follow up period: 2 years.

Formula Setting: coronary care unit in a university hospital in Nebraska, USA.

Formula Patients: 209 patients 30–75 years of age (mean age 55 y, 63% men) who were admitted to the coronary care unit with acute coronary syndrome or decompensated heart failure, had smoked for >=5 years, and had a Fagerstrom score >7. Exclusion criteria included current alcohol or illicit substance addiction.

Formula Intervention: an intensive smoking cessation intervention plus usual care (n = 109) or usual care only (n = 100). The intensive intervention included weekly 60 minute counselling sessions for >=3 months after discharge and individualised nicotine replacement therapy and/or bupropion at no cost. Intervention group patients were re-treated if they started smoking again. Usual care included written self help materials and a 30 minute counselling session before discharge.

Formula Outcomes: point prevalence (no smoking since the previous follow up visit) and continuous abstinence (no smoking since the first follow up visit) quit rates (both confirmed by measurement of expired carbon monoxide), mortality, and hospital admission.

Formula Patient follow up: 96% (intention to treat analysis).

MAIN RESULTS
The intensive intervention group had higher quit rates than the usual care group throughout the follow up period and at 2 years (tableGo). The intensive intervention led to fewer hospital admissions and lower all cause mortality (tableGo).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Intensive smoking cessation intervention plus usual care v usual care only in high risk smokers hospitalised for CVD*
 
CONCLUSION
In high risk smokers hospitalised with cardiovascular disease, an intensive smoking cessation intervention reduced hospital admissions and all cause mortality more than usual care only.

Abstract and commentary also appear in ACP Journal Club.

FOOTNOTES
* See glossary. Back

{dagger} Information provided by author. Back

For correspondence: Dr D E Hilleman, Creighton University Cardiac Center, Omaha, NE, USA. hilleman{at}creighton.edu

Source of funding: State of Nebraska Cancer and Smoking Disease Research fund.


 

Commentary

Charles J Bentz, MD, FACP

Providence, St Vincent Hospital and Medical Center, Portland, Oregon,
USA

The small but well designed clinical trial by Mohiuddin et al found that a smoking cessation programme increased quit rates and reduced hospital admissions and mortality in high risk cardiac patients. Several aspects of their cessation intervention deserve comment. First, although the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations quality initiatives encourage US hospitals to identify and intervene in smokers admitted with acute cardiac syndromes, few provide the 30 minute inpatient counselling session described here. Second, the intervention included weekly counselling for 3 months after discharge. Outpatient counselling is unavailable or not covered for most Americans. In 2005, only 14 states covered cessation counselling for all Medicaid recipients and only 1 state (Oregon) covered all forms of counselling and medication.1 Third, medications, which probably doubled quit rates,2 were provided to patients free of charge, and 75% of patients in the intervention group took advantage of them. Fourth, multiple opportunities for re-treatment were allowed. We know that tobacco dependence is a chronic, relapsing condition, and >25% of the intervention group were re-treated during the study period.

This landmark study calls to mind the first study of lipid lowering that showed a significant reduction in mortality and forever changed clinical practice.3 Even if we ignore the effect on mortality, the costs to identify and intervene in smokers are minimal compared with hospital costs. The study should serve as a call to all payers, public and private, to re-evaluate their coverage for intensive tobacco cessation interventions. Physicians need to advocate for increasing coverage and decreasing barriers to effective smoking cessation treatments.

REFERENCES

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2006;55:1194–7.[Medline]
  2. Hughes JR. CA Cancer J Clin 2000;50:143–51.[Abstract]
  3. Pedersen T, Kjekshus J, Berg K, et al. Lancet 1994;344:1383–9.[CrossRef][Medline]




This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bentz, C. J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bentz, C. J


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2007 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.