No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThe prognostic effect of multi-component cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in the modern era of statins and acute revascularisation remains controversial. Focusing on actual clinical practice, the aim was to evaluate the effect of CR on total mortality and other clinical endpoints after an acute coronary event.DesignStructured review and meta-analysis.MethodsRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), retrospective controlled cohort studies (rCCSs) and prospective controlled cohort studies (pCCSs) evaluating patients after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or mixed populations with coronary artery disease (CAD) were included, provided the index event was in 1995 or later.ResultsOut of n = 18,534 abstracts, 25 studies were identified for final evaluation (RCT: n = 1; pCCS: n = 7; rCCS: n = 17), including n = 219,702 patients (after ACS: n = 46,338; after CABG: n = 14,583; mixed populations: n = 158,781; mean follow-up: 40 months). Heterogeneity in design, biometrical assessment of results and potential confounders was evident. CCSs evaluating ACS patients showed a significantly reduced mortality for CR participants (pCCS: hazard ratio (HR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20–0.69; rCCS: HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49–0.84; odds ratio 0.20, 95% CI 0.08–0.48), but the single RCT fulfilling Cardiac Rehabilitation Outcome Study (CROS) inclusion criteria showed neutral results. CR participation was also associated with reduced mortality after CABG (rCCS: HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54–0.70) and in mixed CAD populations.ConclusionsCR participation after ACS and CABG is associated with reduced mortality even in the modern era of CAD treatment. However, the heterogeneity of study designs and CR programmes highlights the need for defining internationally accepted standards in CR delivery and scientific evaluation.

Despite major improvements in diagnostics and interventional therapies, cardiovascular diseases remain a major health care and socio-economic burden both in western and developing countries, in which this burden is increasing in close correlation to economic growth. Health authorities and the general population have started to recognize that the fight against these diseases can only be won if their burden is faced by increasing our investment on interventions in lifestyle changes and prevention. There is an overwhelming evidence of the efficacy of secondary prevention initiatives including cardiac rehabilitation in terms of reduction in morbidity and mortality. However, secondary prevention is still too poorly implemented in clinical practice, often only on selected populations and over a limited period of time. The development of systematic and full comprehensive preventive programmes is warranted, integrated in the organization of national health systems. Furthermore, systematic monitoring of the process of delivery and outcomes is a necessity. Cardiology and secondary prevention, including cardiac rehabilitation, have evolved almost independently of each other and although each makes a unique contribution it is now time to join forces under the banner of preventive cardiology and create a comprehensive model that optimizes long term outcomes for patients and reduces the future burden on health care services. These are the aims that the Cardiac Rehabilitation Section of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation has foreseen to promote secondary preventive cardiology in clinical practice.

The beneficial effect of exercise training and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on symptom-free exercise capacity,cardiovascular and skeletal muscle function, quality of life, general healthy lifestyle, and reduction of depressive symptoms and psychosocial stress is nowadays well recognized. However, it remains largely obscure, which characteristics of physical activity (PA) and exercise training--frequency, intensity, time (duration), type (mode), and volume (dose: intensity x duration) of exercise--are the most effective. The present paper, therefore, will deal with these exercise characteristics in the management of individuals with cardiovascular disease, i.e. coronary artery disease and chronic heart failure patients, but also in patients with congenital or valvular heart disease. Based on the current literature, and if sufficient evidence is available, recommendations from the European Association on Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation are formulated regarding frequency, intensity, time and type of PA, and safety aspects during exercise inpatients with cardiovascular disease. This paper is the third in a series of three papers, all devoted to the same theme: the importance of the exercise characteristics in the management of cardiovascular health. Part I is directed to the general population and Part II to individuals with cardiovascular risk factors. In general, PA recommendations and exercise training programmes for patients with coronary artery disease or chronic heart failure need to be tailored to the individual's exercise capacity and risk profile, with the aim to reach and maintain the individually highest fitness level possible and to perform endurance exercise training 30–60 min daily (3–5 days per week) in combination with resistance training 2–3 times a week. Because of the frequently reported dose–response relationship between training effect and exercise intensity, one should seek sufficiently high training intensities, although more scientific evidence on effect sizes and safety is warranted. At present, there is insufficient data to give more specific recommendations on type, dosage, and intensity of exercise in some other cardiovascular diseases, such as congenital heart disease, valve disease, cardiomyopathies, channelopathies, and patients with implanted devices.

Patients may be offered cardiac rehabilitation (CR), a supervised programme often including exercises, education and psychological care, following a cardiac event, with the aim of reducing morbidity and mortality. Cost-constrained healthcare systems require information about the best use of budget and resources to maximise patient benefit. We aimed to systematically review and critically appraise economic studies of CR and its components. In January 2016, validated electronic searches of the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Embase databases were run to identify full economic evaluations published since 2001. Two levels of screening were used and explicit inclusion criteria were applied. Prespecified data extraction and critical appraisal were performed using the NHS EED handbook and Drummond checklist. The majority of studies concluded that CR was cost-effective versus no CR (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from $1065 to $71 755 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)). Evidence for specific interventions within CR was varied; psychological intervention ranged from dominant (cost saving and more effective) to $226 128 per QALY, telehealth ranged from dominant to $588 734 per QALY and while exercise was cost-effective across all relevant studies, results were subject to uncertainty. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were risk of subsequent events and hospitalisation, hospitalisation and intervention costs, and utilities. This systematic review of studies evaluates the cost-effectiveness of CR in the modern era, providing a fresh evidence base for policy-makers. Evidence suggests that CR is cost-effective, especially with exercise as a component. However, research is needed to determine the most cost-effective design of CR.

In a previous paper, as the first of a series of three on the importance of characteristics and modalities of physical activity (PA) and exercise in the management of cardiovascular health within the general population, we concluded that, in the population at large, PA and aerobic exercise capacity clearly are inversely associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and that a dose–response curve on cardiovascular outcome has been demonstrated in most studies. More and more evidence is accumulated that engaging in regular PA and exercise interventions are essential components for reducing the severity of cardiovascular risk factors, such as obesity and abdominal fat, high BP, metabolic risk factors, and systemic inflammation. However, it is less clear whether and which type of PA and exercise intervention (aerobic exercise, dynamic resistive exercise, or both) or characteristic of exercise (frequency, intensity, time or duration, and volume) would yield more benefit for each separate risk factor. The present paper, therefore, will review and make recommendations for PA and exercise training in the management of cardiovascular health in individuals with cardiovascular risk factors. The guidance offered in this series of papers is aimed at medical doctors, health practitioners, kinesiologists, physiotherapists and exercise physiologists, politicians, public health policy makers, and individual members of the public. Based on previous and the current literature overviews, recommendations from the European Association on Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation are formulated regarding type, volume, and intensity of PA and regarding appropriate risk evaluation during exercise in individuals with cardiovascular risk factors.

All relevant health care staff should be aware of the benefits of CR and routinely refer and encourage patients with cardiac disease to attend a cardiac rehabilitation programme. Depression and anxiety intervention strategies should be incorporated in cardiac rehabilitation programmes.