Socioeconomic and ethnical disparity in coronary heart disease outcomes in Denmark and the effect of cardiac rehabilitation-A nationwide registry study

AIMS: Cardiovascular patients with low socioeconomic status and non-western ethnic background have worse prognostic outcomes. The aim of this nationwide study was first to address whether short-term effects of hospital-based outpatient cardiac rehabilitation (CR) are similar across educational level and ethnic background, and secondly to study whether known disparity in long-term prognosis in patients with cardiovascular disese is diminished by CR participation. METHODS: All patients with myocardial infarction and/or coronary revascularization from August 2015 until March 2018 in the Danish national patient registry or the Danish cardiac rehabilitation database (DHRD) were included. We used descriptive statistics to address disparity in achievement of quality indicators in CR, and Cox proportional hazard regression to examine the association between the disparity measures and MACE (cardiovascular hospitalization and all-cause mortality) with adjustment for age, gender, index-diagnose and co-morbidity. RESULTS: We identified 34,511 patients of whom 19,383 had participated in CR and 9,882 provided information on CR outcomes from the DHRD. We demonstrated a socioeconomic gradient in improvements in VO(2peak), and non-western patients were less often screened for depression or receive dietary consulting. We found a strong socioeconomic gradient in MACE irrespective of CR participation, medication, and risk factor control (adjusted HR 0.65 (95% CI 0.56–0.77) for high versus low education). Non-western origin was associated with higher risk of MACE (adjusted HR 1.2 (1.1–1.4)). CONCLUSION: We found only minor socioeconomic and ethnic differences in achievement of CR quality indicators but strong differences in CHD prognosis indication that conventional risk factor control and medical treatment following CR do not diminish the socioeconomic and ethnical disparity in CHD prognosis

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults after heart valve surgery:review

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation may benefit heart valve surgery patients. We conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence for the use of exercise-based intervention programmes following heart valve surgery.To assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation compared with no exercise training intervention, or treatment as usual, in adults following heart valve surgery. We considered programmes including exercise training with or without another intervention (such as a psycho-educational component).We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); MEDLINE (Ovid); EMBASE (Ovid); CINAHL (EBSCO); PsycINFO (Ovid); LILACS (Bireme); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-S (CPCI-S) on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) on 23 March 2015. We handsearched Web of Science, bibliographies of systematic reviews and trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, Controlled-trials.com, and The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform).We included randomised clinical trials that investigated exercise-based interventions compared with no exercise intervention control. The trial participants comprised adults aged 18 years or older who had undergone heart valve surgery for heart valve disease (from any cause) and received either heart valve replacement, or heart valve repair.Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risk of systematic errors ('bias') by evaluation of bias risk domains. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity were assessed. Meta-analyses were undertaken using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. We sought to assess the risk of random errors with trial sequential analysis.We included two trials from 1987 and 2004 with a total 148 participants who have had heart valve surgery. Both trials had a high risk of bias.There was insufficient evidence at 3 to 6 months follow-up to judge the effect of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation compared to no exercise on mortality (RR 4.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 90.78); participants = 104; studies = 1; quality of evidence: very low) and on serious adverse events (RR 1.15 (95% CI 0.37 to 3.62); participants = 148; studies = 2; quality of evidence: very low). Included trials did not report on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and the secondary outcomes of New York Heart Association class, left ventricular ejection fraction and cost. We did find that, compared with control (no exercise), exercise-based rehabilitation may increase exercise capacity (SMD -0.47, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.13; participants = 140; studies = 2, quality of evidence: moderate). There was insufficient evidence at 12 months follow-up for the return to work outcome (RR 0.55 (95% CI 0.19 to 1.56); participants = 44; studies = 1; quality of evidence: low). Due to limited information, trial sequential analysis could not be performed as planned.Our findings suggest that exercise-based rehabilitation for adults after heart valve surgery, compared with no exercise, may improve exercise capacity. Due to a lack of evidence, we cannot evaluate the impact on other outcomes. Further high-quality randomised clinical trials are needed in order to assess the impact of exercise-based rehabilitation on patient-relevant outcomes, including mortality and quality of life

Physical activity increases survival after heart valve surgery

Objectives: Increased physical activity predicts survival and reduces risk of readmission in patients with coronary heart disease. However, few data show how physical activity is associated with survival and readmission after heart valve surgery. Objective were to assess the association between physical activity levels 6–12 months after heart valve surgery and (1) survival, (2) hospital readmission 18–24 months after surgery and (3) participation in exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. Methods: Prospective cohort study with registry data from The CopenHeart survey, The Danish National Patient Register and The Danish Civil Registration System of 742 eligible patients. Physical activity was quantified with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and analysed using Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox regression and logistic regression methods. Results: Patients with a moderate to high physical activity level had a reduced risk of mortality (3 deaths in 289 patients, 1%) compared with those with a low physical activity level (13 deaths in 235 patients, 5.5%) with a fully adjusted HR of 0.19 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.70). In contrast, physical activity level was not associated with the risk of hospital readmission. Patients who participated in exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (n=297) were more likely than the non-participants (n=200) to have a moderate or high physical activity level than a low physical activity level (fully adjusted OR: 1.52, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.24). Conclusions: Moderate to high levels of physical activity after heart valve surgery are positively associated with higher survival rates and participation in cardiac rehabilitation

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults after heart valve surgery

BACKGROUND: The impact of exercise‐based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) following heart valve surgery is uncertain. We conducted an update of this systematic review and a meta‐analysis to assess randomised controlled trial evidence for the use of exercise‐based CR following heart valve surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of exercise‐based CR compared with no exercise training in adults following heart valve surgery or repair, including both percutaneous and surgical procedures. We considered CR programmes consisting of exercise training with or without another intervention (such as an intervention with a psycho‐educational component). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCO); PsycINFO (Ovid); Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS; Bireme); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index‐Science (CPCI‐S) on the Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) on 10 January 2020. We searched for ongoing trials from ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical‐trials.com, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 15 May 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared exercise‐based CR interventions with no exercise training. Trial participants comprised adults aged 18 years or older who had undergone heart valve surgery for heart valve disease (from any cause) and had received heart valve replacement or heart valve repair. Both percutaneous and surgical procedures were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risk of systematic errors (‘bias’) by evaluating risk domains using the 'Risk of bias' (RoB2) tool. We assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity. We performed meta‐analyses using both fixed‐effect and random‐effects models. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence for primary outcomes (all‐cause mortality, all‐cause hospitalisation, and health‐related quality of life). MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials with a total of 364 participants who have had open or percutaneous heart valve surgery. For this updated review, we identified four additional trials (216 participants). One trial had an overall low risk of bias, and we classified the remaining five trials as having some concerns. Follow‐up ranged across included trials from 3 to 24 months. Based on data at longest follow‐up, a total of nine participants died: 4 CR versus 5 control (relative risk (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 2.68; 2 trials, 131 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low). No trials reported on cardiovascular mortality. One trial reported one cardiac‐related hospitalisation in the CR group and none in the control group (RR 2.72, 95% CI 0.11 to 65.56; 1 trial, 122 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low). We are uncertain about health‐related quality of life at completion of the intervention in CR compared to control (Short Form (SF)‐12/36 mental component: mean difference (MD) 1.28, 95% CI ‐1.60 to 4.16; 2 trials, 150 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low; and SF‐12/36 physical component: MD 2.99, 95% CI ‐5.24 to 11.21; 2 trials, 150 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low), or at longest follow‐up (SF‐12/36 mental component: MD ‐1.45, 95% CI ‐4.70 to 1.80; 2 trials, 139 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low; and SF‐12/36 physical component: MD ‐0.87, 95% CI ‐3.57 to 1.83; 2 trials, 139 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to lack of evidence and the very low quality of available evidence, this updated review is uncertain about the impact of exercise‐CR in this population in terms of mortality, hospitalisation, and health‐related quality of life. High‐quality (low risk of bias) evidence on the impact of CR is needed to inform clinical guidelines and routine practice