Interv Akut Kardiol. 2019;18(3):127-132 | DOI: 10.36290/kar.2019.033
Objective: To evaluate drug non-adherence (NA) in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients based on routine examinations.
Methods: Routine examination results, patient questionnaires as well as adherence (A) assessment by both the patient and physician were analyzed. Serum drug levels (SDLs) were used as a reference method.
Results: Eighty-one patients were enrolled. Using SDL, non-adherence was shown in 25 %. All patients reported to have taken their drugs properly. Omission of a dose a week was admitted by 18 % of A and 25 % of NA patients (p = 0.53). The physician correctly assumed NA in 40 % of NA patients, but incorrectly in 10 % of A. There was a trend among women to be more non-adherent (p = 0.055) while in patients from a village or small town lower NA (p = 0.031) was observed. The systolic (137 ± 13 vs. 124 ± 15 mm Hg, p = 0.001) and diastolic (83 ± 11 vs. 75 ± 9 mm Hg, p = 0.002) blood pressure values were higher in NA. There was a trend towards a higher heart rate (83 ± 18 vs. 73 ± 13, p = 0.052) in NA, with a significant difference in patients treated with beta-blockers (94 ± 19 vs. 73 ± 12, p < 0.001). Adherent patients rated their health status better (p = 0.052). No differences were found in the other parameters.
Conclusion: NA may be predicted in persistent high blood pressure and in high heart rate despite beta-blockers. NA can be confirmed by SDL assessment.
Published: November 1, 2019 Show citation
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to original source...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...
Go to PubMed...
Go to original source...