Submit Abstract OnlineSubmit Issue ProposalBecome an Editorial Board MemberBecome a ReviewerBecome an Executive Guest EditorBecome a Section Editor

Aims and Scope

The Open Cardiovascular Medicine Journal is an open access online journal which publishes research articles, reviews/mini-reviews, case studies, short communications/letters and guest edited thematic issues on the understanding of scientific advances in the field of cardiovascular medicine, written and reviewed by globally recognized experts. Manuscripts on range of topics including cardiac and circulatory system disorders, heart failure, cardiac surgery and pharmacological treatment, arrhythmias, pacing and cellular electrophysiology, atrial fibrillation, vascular and lymphatic research and other related fields are considered for publication.


The Open Cardiovascular Medicine Journal, a peer-reviewed journal, is an important and reliable source of current information on developments in the field. The emphasis will be on publishing quality papers rapidly and freely available to researchers worldwide.


Recent Articles

Primary Non-adherence to Treatment with New Oral Anticoagulants: The Results of a Prospective Observational Study «ANTEY»

Sergey Martsevich, Yulia Lukina, Natalia Kutishenko

Aim:

To assess the main characteristics of patients with non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation (AF) who are initially non-adherent to New Oral Anticoagulants (NOAC), and to identify factors associated with this version of non-adherence.

Materials and Methods:

The ANTEY study included 201 patients with non-valvular AF, who had indications and without contraindications for NOAC treatment. The patients had previously been advised to take oral anticoagulants but they did not comply with all medical recommendations. The observation period was 1 year, during which 2 in-person visits were performed: an inclusion visit (V0) and a visit (V1), as well as 1 telephone contact/follow up (FU); the interval between contacts was 6 months. All patients were recommended to take the NOAC by decision of the physician. During the V0, V1 and FU visits, the “National Society for Evidence-Based Pharmacotherapy (NSEPh) Adherence Scale” questionnaire was used to assess overall adherence and associated factors. 15 (7.5%) patients had not started NOAC therapy by the end of the study (primary non-adherent patients). Their characteristics are analysed in this work.

Results:

The main reasons for primary non-adherence to NOAC were high cost (33.3%), fears of adverse effects (AE) (33.3%), doubts about the need for treatment (13.3%) and the complex therapy regimen (13.3%). In the group of primary non-adherent patients in comparison with the rest of the patients there were significantly more patients with 1 point according to CHADS2VASc (20% and 2.2%, respectively, p = 0.029) and patients with 3 points according to HAS-BLED (33.3% and 9.1%, respectively, p = 0.006); they took antiplatelet drugs more often 73.3% versus 21.5%, respectively (p = 0.001). Full employment at work (OR = 5.2; CI95% [1.5; 18.1], p = 0.009), history of quitting smoking (OR = 5.1; CI95% [1.5; 17.0], p = 0,008), the presence of any pharmacotherapy AE (OR = 4.0; CI95% [1.01; 16.0], p = 0.048) increased the chance of primary non-adherence to NOAC by 4-5 times.

Conclusion:

The most vulnerable in relation to initiation of NOAC therapy for the prevention of thromboembolic complications in AF are those patients who continue to work or have any pharmacotherapy AE. The leading factors preventing the initiation of NOAC administration are their high cost, fear of the development of AE from the therapy, and patients’ doubts about the need for treatment with these drugs. The clinical trial registration number is NCT 03790917.

November 10, 2021
READ MORE

Articles

Editor's Choice

Feasibility of Telephone-Based Cardiology Consultation: Comparison of Resource Use and Outcomes vs In-Person Consultation

Martin E. Matsumura, Kelly Austin, Yasser Khalil, James C. Blankenship, Bryan Martin

Introduction:

The COVID-19 (Coronavirus infectious disease 2019) pandemic has highlighted the need for alternative modalities to connect with outpatients beyond in-person clinic visits. In the present study, we evaluated the feasibility of a telephone-based teleconsultation cardiology service and compared the use of testing and outcomes between teleconsultation and traditional in-office consultations

Methods:

The study took place prior to the COVID-19 pandemic July 2019 to March 2020. Consult lists were reviewed by a cardiologist for patients appropriate for teleconsultation. Those patients were contacted directly and, if agreeable, a consultation was completed and any required testing was arranged. A series of patients seen in the clinic, matched for a reason for consultation and consulting a cardiologist, were compared in terms of testing frequency and outcomes.

Results:

Of 157 patients who felt appropriate for teleconsultation, 100 (63.7%) were successfully contacted and a teleconsultation was completed. Comparing patients undergoing teleconsultation with a matched series of patients seen in person in the clinic, there were no significant differences in testing utilization or outcomes, including emergency room or hospital admission within 30 days of consultation or death or adverse cardiac events at six months following consultation.

Conclusion:

Telemedicine can be successfully utilized as an alternative to traditional clinic consultation for selected patients needing cardiology consultation. This consultative modality does not appear to lead to utilization of increased testing or decreased quality or patient outcomes. Larger studies are needed to assess this mode of consultation.

August 24, 2021
READ MORE

Other Post

Quick Links

Ensuring Content IntegrityFAQsBoard Recruitment WorkflowGuidelines for Guest EditorsPublication Cycle Process FlowQuick Track OptionPublication FeeReviewers GuidelinesPeer Review WorkflowCopyediting ServicesEditorial PoliciesSelf Archiving PoliciesPublishing Ethics and Rectitude

Indexing Agencies

READ MORE