AIM: To assess randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of nurse practitioner-led cardiovascular care.
BACKGROUND: Systematic review of nurse practitioner-led care in patients with cardiovascular disease has not been completed.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus and ProQuest were systematically searched for studies published between January 2007 - June 2017.
REVIEW METHODS: Cochrane methodology was used for risk of bias, data extraction and meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS: Out of 605 articles, five articles met the inclusion criteria. There was no statistical difference between nurse practitioner-led care and usual care for 30-day readmissions, health-related quality of life and length of stay. A 12% reduction in Framingham risk score was identified.
CONCLUSION: There are a few randomized control trials assessing nurse practitioner-led cardiovascular care.
IMPACT: Low to moderate quality evidence was identified with no statistically significant associated outcomes of care. Nurse practitioner roles need to be supported to conduct and publish high-quality research.
As a practicing cardiologist in the field, I find the results are what we would have expected with dedicated nurse practitioners in regard to care of cardiovascular diseases. This study results provided useful information regarding the importance of nurse practitioner education/support in clinical practice.