Journal List > Perspect Nurs Sci > v.12(2) > 1060412

TOOLS
Baek and Son: Literature Review of Nursing Intervention Studies for Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Original Article

Perspectives in Nursing Science 2015;12(2):82-93.

Published online: 19 October 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16952/pns.2015.12.2.82

Literature Review of Nursing Intervention Studies for Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Kyoung Hwa Baek1, Youn-Jung Son2,

1Assistant Professor, Department of Nursing, Gyeongbuk College of Health, Gimcheon

2Professor, Red-Cross College of Nursing, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Son, Youn-Jung Red-Cross College of Nursing, Chung-Ang University, 84 Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 06974, Korea. Tel: +82-2-820-5198, Fax: +82-2-824-7961, E-mail: yjson@cau.ac.kr

Received 24 September 2015       Revised 30 September 2015       Accepted 30 September 2015

Copyright © 2015 The Research Institute of Nursing Science, Seoul National University

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose:

This study aimed to provide a systematic review of the evidence from controlled trials regarding nursing intervention studies on patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, a discussion of the methodological problems that limit current research, and suggestions regarding future directions for research. Methods: Using a predefined protocol, 27 electronic databases were searched, studies selected, relevant data extracted, and the methodological quality of the studies assessed. Results: Twenty-seven studies were found reporting complex, generally heterogeneous interventions. The studies reported positive results, including self-efficacy, knowledge, and self-care. There were 6 randomized controlled trials, 19 quasi-experimental studies, and 2 only research group studies. In addition to support components, the interventions included elements of teaching, counseling, and education. Nursing interventions are still in the developmental and testing phase. Conclusion: The review demonstrated that a great deal is known about nursing intervention, the impact on a range of outcomes, and methodology. Although some useful evidence was reported for all interventions, further research needs to be carried out.

Keywords: Review, Percutaneous coronary intervention, Nursing intervention

REFERENCES

1.Statistics for morbidity and mortality of the Korean [Internet]. Daejeon: Statistic Korea;2012. Available from:. http://www.kostat.go.kr.
2.Antman EM., Selwyn AP., Loscalzo J. Ischemic heart disease. In: Harrison's principles of internal medicine. 18th ed.New York: McGraw-Hill;2012.
3.Odell A., Grip L., Hallberg LR. Restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention: experiences from the patients' perspective. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2006. 5(2):150–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2005.10.004.
4.Rolley JX., Salamonson Y., Dennison CR., Davidson PM. Nursing care practices following a percutaneous coronary intervention: results of a survey of Australian and New Zealand cardiovascular nurses. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2010. 25(1):75–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JCN.0b013e3181bb419d.
5.Smith SC Jr.Feldman TE., Hirshfeld JW Jr., Jacobs AK., Kern MJ., King SB, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention-summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006. 47(1):216–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.11.025.
6.Fernandez RS., Davidson P., Salamonson Y., Griffiths R., Juer-gens C. The health-related quality of life trajectory in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2007. 27(4):223–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.HCR.0000281767.59781.a1.
crossref
7.Chantal JL., Liset VD., Harald TJ., Ron JGP., Cindy P. The effects of Hartcoach, a life style intervention provided by telephone on the reduction of coronary risk factors: a randomised trial. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2012. 12(47):1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2261-12-47.
crossref
8.King SB III., Smith SC Jr.., Hirshfeld JW Jr.., Jacobs AK., Morrison DA., Williams DO, et al. 2007 focused update of the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008. 51(2):172–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.10.002.
9.Kushner FG., Hand M., Smith SC Jr.., King SB III., Anderson JL., Antman EM, et al. 2009 focused updates: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (updating the 2004 guideline and 2007 focused update) and ACC/AHA/SCAI guidelines on percutaneous coronary intervention (updating the 2005 guideline and 2007 focused update): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009. 54(23):2205–41. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.10.015.
10.Lins S., Guffey D., VanRiper S., Kline-Rogers E. Decreasing vascular complications after percutaneous coronary interventions: partnering to improve outcomes. Crit Care Nurse. 2006. 26(6):38–46.
11.Lee EK., Son YJ. Gender differences in cardiac knowledge and symptoms recognition in patients with acute coronary syndromes. J Korean Biol Nurs Sci. 2010. 12(3):166–74.
12.Moser DK., Kimble LP., Alberts MJ., Alonzo A., Croft JB., Dracup K, et al. Reducing delay in seeking treatment by patients with acute coronary syndrome and stroke: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Nursing and Stroke Council. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2007. 22(4):326–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.JCN.0000278963.28619.4a.
13.Behar-Horenstein LS., Guin P., Gamble K., Hurlock G., Leclear E., Philipose M, et al. Improving patient care through patient-family education programs. Hosp Top. 2005. 83(1):21–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/htps.83.1.21-27.
crossref
14.Bernstein SJ., Skarupski KA., Grayson CE., Starling MR., Bates ER., Eagle KA. A randomized controlled trial of information-giving to patients referred for coronary angiography: effects on outcomes of care. Health Expect. 1998. 1(1):50–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1369-6513.1998.00007.x.
crossref
15.Chair SY., Taylor-Piliae RE., Lam G., Chan S. Effect of positioning on back pain after coronary angiography. J Adv Nurs. 2003. 42(5):470–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02646.x.
crossref
16.Augustin AC., de Quadros AS., Sarmento-Leite RE. Early sheath removal and ambulation in patients submitted to percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomised clinical trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010. 47(8):939–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.01.004.
crossref
17.Reigle J., Molnar HM., Howell C., Dumont C. Evaluation of inpatient interventional cardiology. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2006. 18(4):523–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2006.09.002.
crossref
18.Leeper B. Nursing outcomes: percutaneous coronary interventions. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2004. 19(5):346–53.
19.Glasgow RE., Vogt TM., Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999. 89(9):1322–7.
crossref
20.Whittemore R., Grey M. The systematic development of nursing interventions. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2002. 34(2):115–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2002.00115.x.
crossref
21.Burns N., Grove SK. The practice of nursing research: conduct, critique and utilization. 5th ed.Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co;2005.
22.Aiken LH., Clarke SP., Sloane DM. Hospital staffing, organization, and quality of care: cross-national finding. Nurs Outlook. 2002. 50(5):187–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mno.2002.126696.
23.Mass ML., Johnson M., Moorhead S. Classifying nursing-sensitive patient outcomes. Image J Nurs Sch. 1996. 28(4):295–301.
24.Whitman GR., Davidson LJ., Rudy EB., Wolf GA. Developing a multi-institutional nursing report card. J Nurs Adm. 2001. 31(2):78–84.
crossref
25.Hart S., Bergquist S., Gajewski B., Dunton N. Reliability testing of the national database of nursing quality indicators pressure ulcer indicator. J Nurs Care Qual. 2006. 21(3):256–65.
crossref
26.Dumont CJ. Blood pressure and risks of vascular complications after percutaneous coronary intervention. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2007. 26(3):121–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.DCC.0000267807.95228.2e.
crossref
27.De Bleser L., Depreitere R., De Waele K., Vanhaecht K., Vlayen J., Sermeus W. Defining pathways. J Nurs Manag. 2006. 14(7):553–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2934.2006.00702.x.
crossref
28.Hung DY., Rundall TG., Tallia AF., Cohen DJ., Halpin HA., Crabtree BF. Rethinking prevention in primary care: applying the chronic care model to address health risk behaviors. Milbank Q. 2007. 85(1):69–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00477.x.
crossref
29.Peterson ED., Bynum DZ., Roe MT. Association of evidence-based care processes and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes: performance matters. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2008. 23(1):50–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.JCN.0000305058.03872.f1.

Figure 1.
Summary of evidence search and screening results.
pns-12-82f1.tif
Table 1.
Set of Criteria used in Evaluating Evidence
Evidence level Criterion
I Meta-analysis, well systemized.
II Systemized review or one randomized nursing experiment or several good quasi-experimental status with consistant results.
IIIa One good quasi-experiment study or serveral good quasi-experimental studies with consistent results.
IIIb Several quantitative descriptive or correlation studies with consistent results.
IIIc Several good qualitative studies with consistent results.
IV Other good studies, case studies, consensus statements and expert opinions. Evidence based on expert consensus, description provided for how consensus is reached.
Table 2.
Characteristics of Interventional Studies Reviewed
Items Characteristics n (%)
Context of intervention Hospital 21 (78)
Home 5 (19)
Hospital + home 1 (3)
Intervention period pre-PCI 5 (19)
intra-PCI 14 (52)
post-PCI 8 (30)
Study design Randomized control trial 6 (22)
Quasi-experimental 19 (70)
Research group without control group 2 (7)
Power analysis Yes 12 (44)
No 15 (56)
Method data collection Quantitative 27 (100)
Questionaires 9 (33)
2 or more different instrument 18 (67)
Instrument Previously validated, literature reference 27 (73)
Previously used, literature reference 2 (5)
Modified, piloted, validated 3 (8)
Self-constructed 1 (3)
No description of the development or quality 4 (11)
Data collection during study 1~2 5 (19)
3~4 10 (37)
5 or more 10 (37)
Data missing 2 (7)
Number of participants 1~50 8 (30)
51~100 9 (33)
101~200 5 (19)
＞300 5 (19)
Duration of intervention ≤1 21 (78)
2~4 1 (4)
＞13 2 (7)
Data missing 3 (11)
Intervention delivery Hospital visit / personal meeting 20 (74)
Hospital visit / phone calls 1 (4)
Phone calls 3 (11)
Home visits / phone calls 2 (7)
Group meetings 1 (4)
Table 3.
Outcome of Interventions
Intervention Duration, delivery Outcome Evidence Level Appendix no.
Education and support intervention Patients admitted for CAG were educated to improve patient's knowledge of procedure and post discharge management. 1 day 35 minutes Enhancing patient's knowledge about the disease and compliance of sick role IIIa 7
Education and support intervention Information given to ICU admitted patients after PCI about illness, treatment and risk factor management, daily activity, follow-up, diet, medication and exercise educated to individually. Hospitalization + post discharge 1 week 1 phone call Improved self care behavior IIIa 2
Support and teaching intervention CAG patients received counselling on how to cope with difficult situation, counselling sessions organized in crisis situations. Emotional and informational support.　 4 weeks 3 phone calls　 Improved patient's self-efficacy and self-care IIIa 16
Education and support intervention Patients with coronary artery disease after CAG were educated to illness knowledge, risk factors, symptom management, diet and exercise. Patients received counselling about support compliance of sick-role behavior.　 10 days 1 phone call Imcreased the knowledge level and compliance of sick-role behavior IIIa 1
Education and support intervention CAD patient and family were received tailored education, stress management, exercise, diet, deep breathing, music therapy, periodical telephone monitoring and a daily log. 24 weeks 9 phone calls, 1 home visit Improved symptom experence IIIa 17
Support intervention Stress management, imagery touch therapy given to patients awaiting percutoneous intervention for unstable coronary syndrome. Stress management emphasized support listening, an individualized educational dialog about stress. 2 hours before the cardiac intervention/ group meeting Produced reductions in reported worry II 26
Education and support intervention video information provided detailed information about function of the heart, coronary artery disease, angiography procedure, and recommended behaviors to be followed before, during and after coronary angiography. 4 min, 40s 1 time/personal meeting Decreased in heart rate and blood pressure. high levels of comfort, satisfaction, and tolerability II 24
Support and counselling intervention CAG patients and family members received counselling on how to a disease management. Counselling sessions organized question and expression techniques with patients. 50 min 2 session/personal meeting Improved patient's knowledge of disease IIIa 10
Support intervention Patients admitted cardiac unit after percutaneous transluminal coronary angiography received earplug-delivered sleep-inducing music therapy. 1 day 52 min Improved patient's sleeping quantity and quality II 25

CAG=Coronary angiography; ICU=Intensive care unit; CAD=Coronary artery disease.

TOOLS
Similar articles