Dataset Information

Multicomponent Cardiac Rehabilitation and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Stable Angina: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To carry out a systematic review of the effect of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and its components on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable angina.

Methods

We searched the databases including Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and EBSCO CINAHL from their inception up to November 1, 2017. The search was not restricted to time or publication status but was limited to the English language. Two independent investigators screened the identified studies and extracted the data in duplicate. We reviewed the included studies and, where possible, pooled their results and conducted meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration tools.

Results

The search identified 7508 studies. Ten randomized trials including 4005 participants with the mean (SD) age of 59.6 (5.7) years were considered eligible for inclusion in our analyses. The results of meta-analyses of exercise-based CR for patients with stable angina revealed that CR improved exercise capacity (the difference between baseline and follow-up was 0.76 watt [0.49 to 1.02] higher in the CR group vs the non-CR group) and decreased angina frequency (standard mean difference, -0.27 [CI, -0.43 to 0.11]). No significant differences were noted in other outcomes, including quality of life. Mortality could not be adequately assessed because it was analyzed in only 1 exercise-based CR study.

Conclusion

Our systematic review, involving a relatively small number of studies with low to moderate risk of bias and with considerable heterogeneity, found a significant decrease in angina frequency and increase in exercise capacity in patients with stable angina who participated in an exercise-based CR program. Studies involving the impact of components of CR are limited and generally report beneficial outcomes. Additional studies are needed to clarify the possible role of CR in the management of patients with stable angina.

SUBMITTER: Saeidifard F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8325103 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPrevious reviews indicate that the effect of acupuncture on stable angina pectoris (SAP) remains controversial. The results of trials published in the past 5?years may possibly change this situation, but an updated systematic review is not available. We therefore designed this study to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for treating SAP.Methods and analysisNine online databases will be searched without language or publication status restrictions from their inception to September 2017. Randomised controlled trials that include patients with stable angina receiving acupuncture therapy versus a control group will be deemed eligible. The selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be carried out by two independent reviewers. Data synthesis will be performed using RevMan V.5.3 software with either a fixed effects model or random effects model, depending on the heterogeneity test. Evidence quality will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. The efficacy-effectiveness spectrum for each included trial will be rated using the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-effectiveness Spectrum tool. Outcomes of interest include the improvement of weekly angina attacks and reduction of nitroglycerin medication use after receiving acupuncture treatment, the incidence of cardiovascular events, heart rate variability, pain intensity measured on a visual analogue scale, total workload and exercise duration at peak exercise, safety and adverse events. A meta-analysis will be conducted if no considerable heterogeneity is detected. The results will be presented as risk ratios with 95% CIs for dichotomous data and weighted mean differences or standardised mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will not involve private information from individuals or endanger their rights, and therefore does not necessarily require ethical approval. The results may be published in a peer-reviewed journal or disseminated in relevant conferences.Trial registration numberCRD42015016201.

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:BackgroundHome Based Cardiac Rehabilitation (HBCR) has been considered a reasonable alternative to Center-based Cardiac Rehabilitation (CBCR) in patients with established cardiovascular disease, especially in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic. However, the long-term cardiovascular outcomes of patients referred to HBCR remains unknown.ObjectivesTo compare outcomes of patients who were referred and attended HBCR vs patients referred but did not attend HBCR (Non-HBCR).MethodsWe performed a retrospective study of 269 patients referred to HBCR at Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center (PVAMC). From November 2017 to March 2020, 427 patients were eligible and referred for Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) at PVAMC. Of total patients, 158 patients were referred to CBCR and 269 patients to HBCR based on patient and/or clinician preference. The analysis of outcomes was focused on HBCR patients. We compared outcomes of patients who were referred and attended HBCR vs patients referred but did not attend HBCR (Non-HBCR) from 3 to 12 months of the referral date. HBCR consisted of face-to-face entry exam with exercise prescription, weekly phone calls for education and exercise monitoring, with adjustments where applicable, for 12-weeks and an exit exam. Primary outcome was composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalizations. Secondary outcomes were all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations, separately. We used cox proportional methods to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI. We adjusted for imbalanced characteristics at baseline: smoking, left ventricular ejection fraction and CABG status.ResultsA total of 269 patients (mean age: 72, 98% Male) were referred to HBCR, however, only 157 (58%) patients attended HBCR. The primary outcome occurred in 30 patients (19.1%) in the HBCR group and 30 patients (30%) in the Non-HBCR group (adjusted HR=0.56, CI 0.33-0.95, P=.03). All-cause mortality occurred in 6.4% of patients in the HBCR group and 13% patients in the Non-HBCR group 3 to 12 months after HBCR referral (adjusted HR=0.43, CI 0.18-1.0, P= .05). There was no difference in cardiovascular hospitalizations (HBCR: 5.7% vs Non-HBCR: 10%, adjusted HR 0.57, CI 0.22-1.4, P= .23) or all cause hospitalizations at 3 to 12 months between the groups (HBCR: 12.7% vs Non-HBCR: 21%, adjusted HR 0.53, CI 0.28-1.01, P= .05).ConclusionCompletion of HBCR among referred patients was associated with a lower risk of the combined all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalizations up to 12 months. Based on the outcomes, HBCR is a reasonable option that can improve access to CR for patients who are not candidates of or cannot attend CBCR. Randomized-controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Project description:RationaleThe effect of stem/progenitor cells on myocardial perfusion and clinical outcomes in patients with refractory angina remains unclear because studies published to date have been small phase I-II trials.ObjectiveWe performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of cell-based therapy in patients with refractory angina who were ineligible for coronary revascularization.Methods and resultsSeveral data sources were searched from inception to September 2015, which yielded 6 studies. The outcomes pooled were indices of angina (anginal episodes, Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class, exercise tolerance, and antianginal medications), myocardial perfusion, and clinical end points. We combined the reported clinical outcomes (myocardial infarction, cardiac-related hospitalization, and mortality) into a composite end point (major adverse cardiac events). Mean difference (MD), standardized mean differences, or odds ratio were calculated to assess relevant outcomes. Our analysis shows an improvement in anginal episodes (MD, -7.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], -15.22 to -0.41), use of antianginal medications (standardized MD, -0.59; 95% CI, -1.03 to -0.14), Canadian Cardiovascular Society class (MD, -0.58; 95% CI, -1.00 to -0.16), exercise tolerance (standardized MD, 0.331; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.55), and myocardial perfusion (standardized MD, -0.49; 95% CI, -0.76 to -0.21) and a decreased risk of major adverse cardiac events (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.98) and arrhythmias (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.98) in cell-treated patients when compared with patients on maximal medical therapy.ConclusionsThe present meta-analysis indicates that cell-based therapies are not only safe but also lead to an improvement in indices of angina, relevant clinical outcomes, and myocardial perfusion in patients with refractory angina. These encouraging results suggest that larger, phase III randomized controlled trials are in order to conclusively determine the effect of stem/progenitor cells in refractory angina.