A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the core components of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), nutritional counseling (NC), risk factor modification (RFM), psychosocial management (PM), patient education (PE), and exercise training (ET)) was undertaken. Published RCTs were identified from database inception dates to April 2017, and risk of bias assessed using Cochrane’s tool. Endpoints included mortality (all-cause and cardiovascular (CV)) and morbidity (fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and hospitalization (all-cause and CV)). Meta-regression models decomposed treatment effects into the main effects of core components, and two-way or all-way interactions between them. Ultimately, 148 RCTs (50,965 participants) were included. Main effects models were best fitting for mortality (e.g., for all-cause, specifically PM (hazard ratio HR = 0.68, 95% credible interval CrI = 0.54–0.85) and ET (HR = 0.75, 95% CrI = 0.60–0.92) components effective), MI (e.g., for all-cause, specifically PM (hazard ratio HR = 0.76, 95% credible interval CrI = 0.57–0.99), ET (HR = 0.75, 95% CrI = 0.56–0.99) and PE (HR = 0.68, 95% CrI = 0.47–0.99) components effective) and hospitalization (e.g., all-cause, PM (HR = 0.76, 95% CrI = 0.58–0.96) effective). For revascularization (including CABG and PCI individually), the full interaction model was best-fitting. Given that each component, individual or in combination, was associated with mortality and/or morbidity, recommendations for comprehensive CR are warranted.
ObjectiveDespite the growing epidemic of cardiovascular diseases in middle-income countries, there is insufficient evidence about cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in these countries. Thus, the effects of comprehensive CR on functional capacity and risk factors were investigated in Brazil, to test the hypothesis that it results in better outcomes than exercise-only or no CR.MethodsSingle-blinded, randomised controlled trial with three parallel arms: comprehensive CR (exercise+education) versus exercise-only CR versus wait-list control. Eligible coronary patients were randomised in blocks of four with 1:1:1 concealed allocation. Participants randomised to exercise-only CR received 36 exercise classes; comprehensive CR group also received 24 educational sessions. The primary outcome was incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) distance; secondary outcomes were cardiovascular risk factors. All outcomes were assessed at baseline and 6 months later. Analysis of covariance was performed on the basis of intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol.Results115 (88.5%) patients were randomised; 93 (80.9%) were retained. There were improvements in ISWT distance from pretest to post-test with comprehensive (from 358.4±132.6 to 464.8±121.6 m; mean change=106.4; p<0.001) and exercise-only (from 391.5±118.8 to 488.1±106.3 m; mean change=96.5, p<0.001) CR, with significantly greater functional capacity with comprehensive CR versus control (ITT: mean difference=75.6±30.7 m, 95% CI 1.4 to 150.2). There were also reductions in systolic blood pressure with comprehensive CR (ITT: reduction of 6.2±17.8 mm Hg, p=0.04). There were no significant differences for other outcomes.ConclusionResults showed clinically significant improvements in functional capacity and blood pressure with CR, and significantly greater functional capacity with comprehensive CR compared with usual care.Trial registration numberNCT02575976; Results.
Background Despite the epidemic of cardiovascular diseases in middle‐income countries, few trials are testing the benefits of cardiac rehabilitation ( CR ). This trial assessed (1) maintenance of functional capacity, risk factor control, knowledge, and heart‐health behaviors and (2) mortality and morbidity at 6 months following CR in a middle‐income country. Methods and Results Eligible Brazilian coronary patients were initially randomized (1:1:1 concealed) to 1 of 3 parallel arms (comprehensive CR [exercise plus education], exercise‐only CR , or wait‐list control). The CR programs were 6 months in duration, at which point follow‐up assessments were performed. Mortality and morbidity were ascertained from chart and patient or family report (blinded). Controls were then offered CR (crossover). Outcomes were again assessed 6 months later (blinded). ANCOVA was performed for each outcome at 12 months. Overall, 115 (88.5%) patients were randomized, and 62 (53.9%) were retained at 1 year. At 6 months, 23 (58.9%) of those 39 initially randomized to the wait‐list control elected to attend CR . Functional capacity, risk factors, knowledge, and heart‐health behaviors were maintained from 6 to 12 months in participants from both CR arms (all P >0.05). At 1 year, knowledge was significantly greater with comprehensive CR at either time point ( P <0.001). There were 2 deaths. Hospitalizations ( P =0.03), nonfatal myocardial infarctions ( P =0.04), and percutaneous coronary interventions ( P =0.03) were significantly fewer with CR than control at 6 months. Conclusions CR participation is associated with lower morbidity, long‐term maintenance of functional capacity, risk factors, and heart‐health behaviors, as well as with greater cardiovascular knowledge compared with no CR . Clinical Trial Registration URL : http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 02575976.
ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and quasi-experimental and retrospective studies is to investigate the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in patients with advanced chronic disease on the waiting list for lung transplantation.SettingPR performed for inpatient or outpatient lung transplant candidates.InterventionPR programme including aerobic exercise training and/or resistance exercise training.Primary and secondary outcomesQuality of life and exercise capacity (primary outcomes). Survival rate after transplant surgery; pulmonary function; respiratory muscle strength; psychological aspects; upper and lower extremity muscle strength and adverse effects (secondary outcomes). Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed study quality and extracted data. Studies in any language were included.ResultsThis was a systematic review and studies were searched on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro. Experimental and retrospective studies evaluating the effects of PR in candidates for lung transplantation (>18 years old) with any lung diseases were included. 2 RCTs, and two quasi-experimental and two retrospectives studies, involving 1305 participants were included in the review. 5 studies included an enhancement reported in quality of life using the Short Form 36 questionnaire and showed improvements in some domains. All studies included exercise capacity evaluated through 6 min walk test and in five of them, there were improvements in this outcome after PR. Owing to the different characteristics of the studies, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis.ConclusionsStudies included in this review showed that PR is an effective treatment option for patients on the waiting list for lung transplantation and can improve quality of life and exercise capacity in those patients. Although individual studies reported positive effects of PR, this review shows that there is a need for more studies of a high methodological quality addressing PR effects in lung transplant candidates.Trial registration numberPROSPERO CDR42015025110.
We could draw no reliable conclusions concerning the use of breathing exercises for children with asthma in clinical practice. The breathing exercises were part of a more comprehensive package of care, and could not be assessed on their own. Moreover, there were methodological differences among the three small included studies and poor reporting of methodological aspects and results in most of the included studies.
Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recommended in clinical practice guidelines, but dose prescribed varies highly by country. This study characterized the dose offered in supervised CR programs and alternative models worldwide and their potential correlates. Methods and Results: In this cross-sectional study, an online survey was administered to CR programs globally. Cardiac associations and local champions facilitated program identification. Countries were classified based on region and income categories. Dose was operationalized as program duration×sessions per week. Generalized linear mixed models were performed to assess correlates. Of 203 countries in the world, 111 (54.7%) offered CR; data were collected in 93 (83.8% country response rate; n=1082 surveys, 32.1% program response rate). Globally, supervised CR programs were a median of 24 sessions (n=619, 57.3% programs ≥12 sessions); home-based and community-based programs offered 6 and 20 sessions, respectively. There was significant variation in supervised CR dose by region ( P ≤0.001), with the Americas (median, 36 sessions) offering a significantly greater dose than several other regions; there was also a trend for variation by country income classification. There was no difference in home-based dose by region ( P =0.43) but there was for community-based programs ( P <0.05; Americas offering greater dose). There was a significant dose variation in both home- and community-based programs by income classification ( P =0.002 and P <0.001, respectively), with higher doses offered by upper-middle-income than high-income countries. Correlates of supervised CR dose included more involvement of physicians ( P =0.026), proximity to other programs ( P =0.002), and accepting patients with noncardiac indications ( P =0.037). Conclusions: CR programs in many countries may need to increase their dose, which could be supported through physician champions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based startup that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2023 scite Inc. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers