Dataset Information

Impact of cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity in diabetic versus non-diabetic patients: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiac 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 analysis

Interventional 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 dissemination

The 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 number

CRD42020148832.

SUBMITTER: Dababneh EH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8051383 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.