Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of the Core Components of Cardiac Rehabilitation on Mortality and Morbidity: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Kabboul NN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6306907 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of the Core Components of Cardiac Rehabilitation on Mortality and Morbidity: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Kabboul Nader N NN Tomlinson George G Francis Troy A TA Grace Sherry L SL Chaves Gabriela G Rac Valeria V Daou-Kabboul Tamara T Bielecki Joanna M JM Alter David A DA Krahn Murray M

Journal of clinical medicine 20181204 12

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 ...[more]

PMID: 30518047

Similar Datasets

Project description:In the Guidance for Industry from the Food and Drug Administration in 2008, excess cardiovascular risk should be ruled out in trials of all new antidiabetic drugs; however, relatively few studies have focused on cardiovascular safety with antidiabetic drug use. We aimed to examine mortality and cardiovascular risk using a network meta-analysis. We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov registry databases in March 2016 to identify randomized controlled trials reporting cardiovascular risk with the following oral antidiabetic drugs: metformin, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinedione (TZD), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. We assessed the differences in the risks of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-related mortality, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and myocardial infarction (MI) among antidiabetic drugs with fixed effect models for direct pairwise comparisons and Bayesian network meta-analyses to integrate direct and indirect comparisons. Of the 101,183 patients in 73 randomized controlled trials, 3,434 (3.4%) died. The relative risks of all-cause mortality with SGLT2 inhibitor use were 0.68 (95% credible interval: 0.57-0.80), 0.74 (0.49-1.10), 0.63 (0.46-0.87), 0.71 (0.55-0.90), and 0.65 (0.54-0.78), compared with placebo, metformin, sulfonylurea, TZD, and DPP4 inhibitor, respectively. The relative risks of cardiovascular-related mortality with SGLT2 inhibitor use were 0.61 (0.50-0.76), 0.81(0.36-1.90), 0.52(0.31-0.88), 0.66(0.49-0.91), and 0.61(0.48-0.77), compared with placebo, metformin, sulfonylurea, TZD, and DPP4 inhibitor, respectively. The relative risks of ACS with SGLT2 inhibitor use was consistent with that of all-cause mortality. SGLT2 inhibitor use was associated with a lower risk of ACS than the other OADs and placebo. The relative risks of MI with SGLT2 inhibitor use were 0.77 (0.63-0.93) and 0.75 (0.60-0.94), compared with placebo and DPP4 inhibitor, respectively. The currently available data provide the evidence of cardiovascular benefit from use of SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with type 2 diabetes, although additional results from ongoing studies will be pivotal.

Project description:BackgroundCardiac rehabilitation (CR) decreases the morbidity and mortality risk among patients with cardiac diseases; however, the impact of CR on patients with diabetes remains underexplored. This is a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis methodology to explore if the effect of CR on mortality and morbidity is the same in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with patients without diabetes.Methods and analysisInterventional and non-interventional studies comparing the effect of CR, for at least 1 month, on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes including fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, revascularisation and rehospitalisation in adults with cardiac diseases will be deemed eligible for inclusion. Studies published between 1990 and 2020 will be searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus and in registries for randomised controlled trials. Eligible studies will be selected using the Covidence software, and their salient details regarding the design, population, tested interventions and outcomes of interest will be gathered. The quality of studies to be deemed eligible and reviewed will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's tools. The appraisal process will be based on the study design (interventional and non-interventional). In the meta-analysis step, the pooled effect of CR on the outcomes will be estimated. All meta-analyses will be done using the random-effects model approach (inverse-variance method). I 2 and p value of χ2 statistics will guide the heterogeneity assessment. Subgroup analyses will also be performed. The small study effect will be investigated by generating the funnel plots. The symmetry of the latter will be tested by performing Egger's test.Ethics and disseminationThe systematic review will use data from published literature; hence, no ethical approval will be required. Findings of the systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in peer-reviewed international journals and will be disseminated in local and international scientific meetings.Prospero registration numberCRD42020148832.

Project description:BackgroundMedical costs associated with cardiovascular disease are increasing considerably worldwide; therefore, an efficacious, cost-effective therapy which allows the effective use of medical resources is vital. There have been few economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), especially meta-analyses of medical cost versus patient outcome.MethodsThe target population in this meta-analysis included convalescent and comprehensive CR patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), the status most commonly observed postmyocardial infarction (MI). Here, we evaluated medical costs, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), cost-effectiveness, mortality, and life year (LY). Regarding cost-effectiveness analysis, we analyzed medical costs per QALY, medical costs per LY, and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). We then examined the differences in effects for the 2 treatment arms (CR vs. usual care (UC)) using the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD).ResultsWe reviewed 59 studies and identified 5 studies that matched our selection criteria. In total, 122,485 patients were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis results revealed that the CR arm significantly improved QALY (SMD: -1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.69, -0.87) compared with UC. Although medical costs tended to be higher in the CR arm compared to the UC arm (SMD: 0.02; 95% CI: -0.08, 0.13), cost/QALY was significantly improved in the CR arm compared with the UC arm (SMD: -0.31; 95% CI: -0.53, -0.09). The ICURs for the studies (4 RCTs and 1 model analysis) were as follows: -48,327.6 USD/QALY; -5,193.8 USD/QALY (dominant, CR is cheaper and more effective than UC); and 4,048.0 USD/QALY, 17,209.4 USD/QALY, and 26,888.7 USD/QALY (<50,000 USD/QALY, CR is costlier but more effective than UC), respectively. Therefore, there were 2 dominant and 3 effective results.ConclusionsWhile there are some limitations, primarily regarding data sources, our results suggest that CR is potentially cost-effective.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Heart failure (HF) is a complex chronic condition, leading to frequent hospitalization, decreased quality of life, and increased mortality. Current guidelines recommend that multidisciplinary care be provided in specialized HF clinics. A number of studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of these clinics; however, there is a wide range in the services provided across different clinics. This network meta-analysis will aim to identify the aspects of HF clinic care that are associated with the best outcomes: a reduction in mortality, hospitalization, and visits to emergency department (ED) and improvements to quality of life. METHODS:Relevant electronic databases will be systematically searched to identify eligible studies. Controlled trials and observational cohort studies of adult (≥ 18 years of age) patients will be eligible for inclusion if they evaluate at least one component of guideline-based HF clinic care and report all-cause or HF-related mortality, hospitalizations, or ED visits or health-related quality of life assessed after a minimum follow-up of 30 days. Both controlled trials and observational studies will be included to allow us to compare the efficacy of the interventions in an ideal context versus their effectiveness in the real world. Two reviewers will independently perform both title and abstract full-text screenings and data abstraction. Study quality will be assessed through a modified Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or the ROBINS-I tool for observational studies. The strength of evidence will be assessed using a modified Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Network meta-analysis methods will be applied to synthesize the evidence across included studies. To contrast findings between study designs, data from RCTs will be analyzed separately from non-randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. We will estimate both the probability that a particular component of care is the most effective and treatment effects for specified combinations of care. DISCUSSION:To our knowledge, this will be the first study to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the different components of care offered in HF clinics. The findings from this systematic review will provide valuable insight about which components of HF clinic care are associated with improved outcomes, potentially informing clinical guidelines as well as the design of future care interventions in dedicated HF clinics. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017058003.

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.

Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of the Core Components of Cardiac Rehabilitation on Mortality and Morbidity: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of the Core Components of Cardiac Rehabilitation on Mortality and Morbidity: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets