Dataset Information

Is exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis to re-examine the evidence.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To determine the contemporary effectiveness of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in terms of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and hospital admissions. DATA SOURCES:Studies included in or meeting the entry criteria for the 2016 Cochrane review of exercise-based CR in patients with coronary artery disease. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise-based CR versus a no-exercise control whose participants were recruited after the year 2000. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS:Two separate reviewers independently screened the characteristics of studies. One reviewer quality appraised any new studies and assessed their risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's recommended risk of bias tool. Data were reported as the risk difference (95%?CI). RESULTS:We included 22 studies with 4834 participants (mean age 59.5 years, 78.4% male). We found no differences in outcomes between exercise-based CR and a no-exercise control at their longest follow-up period for: all-cause mortality (19 studies; n=4194; risk difference 0.00, 95%?CI -0.02 to 0.01, P=0.38) or cardiovascular mortality (9 studies; n=1182; risk difference -0.01, 95%?CI -0.02 to 0.01, P=0.25). We found a small reduction in hospital admissions of borderline statistical significance (11 studies; n=1768; risk difference -0.05, 95%?CI -0.10 to -0.00, P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS:Our analysis indicates conclusively that the current approach to exercise-based CR has no effect on all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality, when compared with a no-exercise control. There may be a small reduction in hospital admissions following exercise-based CR that is unlikely to be clinically important. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017073616.

SUBMITTER: Powell R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5857699 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis to re-examine the evidence.

Powell Richard R McGregor Gordon G Ennis Stuart S Kimani Peter K PK Underwood Martin M

BMJ open 20180314 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine the contemporary effectiveness of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in terms of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and hospital admissions.<h4>Data sources</h4>Studies included in or meeting the entry criteria for the 2016 Cochrane review of exercise-based CR in patients with coronary artery disease.<h4>Study eligibility criteria</h4>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise-based CR versus a no-exercise control whose participants were re ...[more]

PMID: 29540415

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHeart Transplant (HTx) is the ultimate chance of life for end stage Heart Failure (HF). Exercise training has consistently shown the potential to improve functional capacity in various chronic heart diseases. Still, the evidence in HTx recipients is scarcer. This study aims to systematically review the literature to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Exercise-based Cardiac Rehabilitation (EBCR) in HTx recipients and to identify possible moderators of success.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the effect and safety of EBCR in adult HTx recipients. The primary outcome was functional capacity, measured by Peak Oxygen Uptake (pVO2). We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge databases until December 2020, reviewed references of relevant articles and contacted experts. Usual care (UC), the different dosages of exercise regimens and alternative settings were allowed as comparators. A quantitative synthesis of evidence was performed using random-effects meta-analyses.ResultsA total of 11 studies with 404 patients were included. Nine studies comprising 306 patients compared EBCR with usual care. They showed that EBCR improved pVO2 compared to usual care (Mean Difference [MD] 3.03 mL/kg/min, 95% CI [2.28-3.77]; I 2 = 32%). In the subgroup analysis, including length of intervention and timing of enrollment after HTx, no significant moderator was found. Two trials, with 98 patients total, compared High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) and Moderate Intensity Continuous Training (MICT). HIIT attained a significant edge over MICT (MD 2.23 mL/kg/min, 95% CI [1.79-2.67]; I 2 = 0%). No major adverse events associated with EBCR were reported.ConclusionWe found moderate quality evidence suggesting EBCR has a significant benefit on functional capacity improvement HTx recipients at the short-term. HIIT showed superiority when compared to MICT. Research focusing long term outcomes and standardized protocols are needed to improve evidence on EBCR effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundIn heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients the effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on top of state-of-the-art pharmacological and device therapy on mortality, hospitalization, exercise capacity and quality-of-life are not well established.DesignThe design of this study involved a structured review and meta-analysis.MethodsEvaluation of randomised controlled trials of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in HFrEF-patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% of any aetiology with a follow-up of ≥6 months published in 1999 or later.ResultsOut of 12,229 abstracts, 25 randomised controlled trials including 4481 HFrEF-patients were included in the final evaluation. Heterogeneity in study population, study design and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation-intervention was evident. No significant difference in the effect of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality compared to control-group was found (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.39-1.41, four studies; 12-months follow-up: relative risk 1.29, 95% confidence interval 0.66-2.49, eight studies; six-months follow-up: relative risk 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.26-3.16, seven studies). In addition there was no significant difference between the groups with respect to 'hospitalization-for-any-reason' (12-months follow-up: relative risk 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.41-1.53, four studies), or 'hospitalization-due-to-heart-failure' (12-months follow-up: relative risk 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.12-2.91, four studies; six-months follow-up: relative risk 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.07-9.71, three studies). All studies show improvement of exercise capacity. Participation in exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation significantly improved quality-of-life as evaluated with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire: (six-months follow-up: mean difference 1.94, 95% confidence interval 0.35-3.56, two studies), but no significant results emerged for quality-of-life measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (nine-months or more follow-up: mean difference -4.19, 95% confidence interval -10.51-2.12, seven studies; six-months follow-up: mean difference -5.97, 95% confidence interval -16.17-4.23, four studies).ConclusionNo association between exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation and mortality or hospitalisation could be observed in HFrEF patients but exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation is likely to improve exercise capacity and quality of life.

Project description:Background: Many heart failure (HF) patients admitted to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) centers have a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device. However, information about the efficacy and safety of exercise rehabilitation in HF patients with a CRT device is scant. We assessed the effects of exercise rehabilitation in HF patients with a CRT device. Methods and Results: The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycInfo, China Biology Medicine, Wanfang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched comprehensively to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 1, 1990 and July 1, 2019 on exercise rehabilitation in HF patients with CRT devices. We identified seven studies published from 2006 to 2019, including 661 patients with an intervention duration of 8 to 24 weeks. Three studies reported all-cause mortality and serious adverse events, and no significant difference was found between exercise rehabilitation patients and controls at the longest available follow-up (both P > 0.05; both I 2 = 0%). Exercise rehabilitation patients exhibited a higher exercise capacity (peak oxygen uptake: random-effect WMD = 2.02 ml/kg/min, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.41, P = 0.005, I 2 = 67.4%; exercise duration: fixed-effect WMD = 102.34s, 95% CI 67.06 to 137.62, P < 0.001, I 2 = 25%) after intervention, despite the significant heterogeneity of studies. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly improved in exercise rehabilitation patients compared to that in controls (fixed-effect WMD = 3.89%, 95% CI 1.50 to 6.28; P = 0.001; I 2 = 48.0%). Due to differences in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessment methods, we only pooled data that reported Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores. Exercise rehabilitation patients exhibited a better HRQOL than controls (fixed-effect WMD = -5.34, 95% CI -10.12 to -0.56; P = 0.028; I 2 = 0%). Conclusions: Exercise rehabilitation may restore exercise capacity and cardiac function in HF patients with a CRT device. Furthermore, exercise training was associated with better HRQOL on follow-up.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effect of home based and supervised centre based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with coronary heart disease.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, without language restriction, searched from 2001 to January 2008.Review methodsReference lists checked and advice sought from authors. Included randomised controlled trials that compared centre based cardiac rehabilitation with home based programmes in adults with acute myocardial infarction, angina, or heart failure or who had undergone coronary revascularisation. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of the identified trials and extracted data independently. Authors were contacted when possible to obtain missing information.Results12 studies (1938 participants) were included. Most studies recruited patients with a low risk of further events after myocardial infarction or revascularisation. No difference was seen between home based and centre based cardiac rehabilitation in terms of mortality (relative risk 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 2.66), cardiac events, exercise capacity (standardised mean difference -0.11, -0.35 to 0.13), modifiable risk factors (weighted mean difference systolic blood pressure (0.58 mm Hg, -3.29 mm Hg to 4.44 mm Hg), total cholesterol (-0.13 mmol/l, -0.31 mmol/l to 0.05 mmol/l), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.15 mmol/l, -0.31 mmol/l to 0.01 mmol/l), or relative risk for proportion of smokers at follow-up (0.98, 0.73 to 1.31)), or health related quality of life, with the exception of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.06, -0.11 to -0.02) mmol/l). In the home based participants, there was evidence of superior adherence. No consistent difference was seen in the healthcare costs of the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation.ConclusionsHome and centre based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be equally effective in improving clinical and health related quality of life outcomes in patients with a low risk of further events after myocardial infarction or revascularisation. This finding, together with the absence of evidence of differences in patients' adherence and healthcare costs between the two approaches, supports the further provision of evidence based, home based cardiac rehabilitation programmes such as the "Heart Manual." The choice of participating in a more traditional supervised centre based or evidence based home based programme should reflect the preference of the individual patient.

Project description:AimsCoronary heart disease is the most common reason for referral to exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) globally. However, the generalizability of previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is questioned. Therefore, a contemporary updated meta-analysis was undertaken.Methods and resultsDatabase and trial registry searches were conducted to September 2020, seeking RCTs of exercise-based interventions with ≥6-month follow-up, compared with no-exercise control for adults with myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, or following coronary artery bypass graft, or percutaneous coronary intervention. The outcomes of mortality, recurrent clinical events, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis, and cost-effectiveness data were narratively synthesized. Meta-regression was used to examine effect modification. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A total of 85 RCTs involving 23 430 participants with a median 12-month follow-up were included. Overall, exercise-based CR was associated with significant risk reductions in cardiovascular mortality [risk ratio (RR): 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64-0.86, number needed to treat (NNT): 37], hospitalizations (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.67-0.89, NNT: 37), and myocardial infarction (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.96, NNT: 100). There was some evidence of significantly improved HRQoL with CR participation, and CR is cost-effective. There was no significant impact on overall mortality (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.89-1.04), coronary artery bypass graft (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.80-1.15), or percutaneous coronary intervention (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.69-1.02). No significant difference in effects was found across different patient groups, CR delivery models, doses, follow-up, or risk of bias.ConclusionThis review confirms that participation in exercise-based CR by patients with coronary heart disease receiving contemporary medical management reduces cardiovascular mortality, recurrent cardiac events, and hospitalizations and provides additional evidence supporting the improvement in HRQoL and the cost-effectiveness of CR.

Project description:BackgroundWhile the clinical benefits of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation are well established, there is extensive variation in the interventions used within these trials. It is unknown whether variations in individual components of these exercise interventions provide different relative contributions to overall clinical outcomes. This study aims to systematically examine the relationship between individual components of the exercise intervention in cardiac rehabilitation (such as intensity and frequency) and clinical outcomes for people with coronary heart disease.MethodsIn this systematic review, eligible trials were identified via searches of databases (PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine, EMBASE, PEDro, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus) from citation tracking and hand-searching. Studies were included if they were randomised trials of a structured exercise intervention (versus usual care) for participants with coronary heart disease and reported at least one of cardiovascular mortality, total mortality, myocardial infarction or revascularisation outcomes. Each included trial was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Authors were also contacted for missing intervention details or data. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate a summary risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the effect of exercise on outcomes. Random effects meta-regression and subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the association between pre-specified co-variates (exercise components or trial characteristics) and each clinical outcome.ResultsSixty-nine trials were included, evaluating 72 interventions which differed markedly in terms of exercise components. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation was effective in reducing cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.86), total mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99) and myocardial infarction (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.92). This effect generally demonstrated no significant differences across subgroups of patients who received various types of usual care, more or less than 150 min of exercise per week and of differing cardiac aetiologies. There was however some heterogeneity observed in the efficacy of cardiac rehabilitation in reducing total mortality based on the presence of lipid lowering therapy (I 2 = 48%, p = 0.15 for subgroup treatment interaction effect). No single exercise component was identified through meta-regression as a significant predictor of mortality outcomes, although reductions in both total (RR 0.81, p = 0.042) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.72, p = 0.045) were observed in trials which reported high levels of participant exercise adherence, versus those which reported lower levels. A dose-response relationship was found between an increasing exercise session time and increasing risk of myocardial infarction (RR 1.01, p = 0.011) and the highest intensity of exercise prescribed and an increasing risk of percutaneous coronary intervention (RR 1.05, p = 0.047).ConclusionsExercise-based cardiac rehabilitation is effective at reducing important clinical outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease. While our analysis was constrained by the quality of included trials and missing information about intervention components, there appears to be little differential effect of variations in exercise intervention, particularly on mortality outcomes. Given the observed effect between higher adherence and improved outcomes, it may be more important to provide exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation programs which focus on achieving increased adherence to the exercise intervention.

Dataset Information

Is exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis to re-examine the evidence.

Publications

Is exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis to re-examine the evidence.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets