Cardiac rehabilitation program is well‐established but the Rehabilitation After Myocardial Infarction Trial (RAMIT) is reported that it does not affect mortality and morbidity of patients after myocardial infarction during follow‐up period. The objectives of the study were to compare functional walking capacity, risk factor control, and morbidities in follow‐up for cardiac rehabilitation (exercise + education), exercise only, and usual care among patients with coronary artery disease. A total of 492 male and female patients (age range: 45–73 years) with coronary artery disease after myocardial infarction or underwent percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting surgeries referred to cardiac rehabilitation were included in the study. Patients were participating in a cardiac rehabilitation program (exercise + education, CRP cohort, n = 125), exercise only (USC cohort, n = 182), or usual care (NCR cohort, n = 185). Data regarding incremental shuttle walk test, lipid profile, the Patient Health Questionnaire 9, and morbidities in follow‐up of patients were retrospectively collected and analyzed. After completion of 1 year, cardiac rehabilitation program (p < 0.0001, q = 20.939) and exercise (p < 0.0001, q = 6.059) were successfully increased incremental shuttle walk test. After completion of 1 year, cardiac rehabilitation program reduced low‐density lipoprotein (p = 0.007, q = 3.349) and depressive symptoms (p < 0.0001, q = 5.649). Morbidities were reported fewer in the patients of CRP cohort than those of USC (p = 0.003, q = 3.427) and NCR (p = 0.003, q = 4.822) cohorts after completion of 1 year of program. Cardiac rehabilitation program (exercise +education) improved functional walking capacity, controlled risk factors, and reduced morbidities of patients with coronary artery disease than exercise only and usual care (Level of evidence: III).

Background: Acute kidney injuries are common in the medical intensive care unit.Generally, intravenous normal saline is administered in critically ill patients but it is associated with acute kidney injury. Current knowledge of chloride and its effect on the physiological functions of the kidney is limited. The objectives of the study were to compare the safety of chloride-restrictive intravenous fluid administration against that of chloride-liberal regarding acute kidney injuries. Methods: Data regarding RIFLE (risk, injury, failure, loss, and end-stage renal failure) categories, Kidney Disease: Improved Global Outcomes (KDIGO) stage, Δ creatinine, and requirements of renal replacement therapy of 285 patients admitted to medical intensive care unit for critical illness during 4-months from the hospitalisation were retrospectively collected and analysed. Patients received chloride-liberal intravenous fluid (CL cohort, n = 163) or that of chloride-restrictive (CR cohort, n = 122) during bundle-of-care.Results: Patients with risk (P = .039) and injury (P = .041) categories of RIFLE, high Δ creatinine (0.22 ± 0.02 mg/dL/patient vs 0.18 ± 0.02 mg/dL/patient, P < .0001), and patients with KDIGO stage 1 (P = .023) and stage 2 (P = .048) were reported significantly higher in the CL cohort than the CR cohort. The higher numbers of patients were put on renal replacement therapy in the CL cohort than those of the CR cohort (16 vs 3, P = .014). Conclusion:The chloride-restrictive intravenous fluid administration has reduced the chances of acute kidney injuries in the intensive medical care unit. | INTRODUC TI ONAcute kidney injuries are the most common in the medical intensive care unit and the range is between 40% and 60%. 1 The main reason for acute kidney injuries is decreased efficiencies of patients for excreting nitrogen-containing waste, unbalanced blood plasma pH, use of nephrotoxic drugs for patients management, and adjusting electrolytes there. 2