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 with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND:Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation may benefit adults with atrial fibrillation or those who had been treated for atrial fibrillation. Atrial fibrillation is caused by multiple micro re-entry circuits within the atrial tissue, which result in chaotic rapid activity in the atria. OBJECTIVES:To assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based rehabilitation programmes, alone or with another intervention, compared with no-exercise training controls in adults who currently have AF, or have been treated for AF. SEARCH METHODS:We searched the following electronic databases; CENTRAL and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, PsycINFO Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection Thomson Reuters, CINAHL EBSCO, LILACS Bireme, and three clinical trial registers on 14 July 2016. We also checked the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews identified by the searches. We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) that investigated exercise-based interventions compared with any type of no-exercise control. We included trials that included adults aged 18 years or older with atrial fibrillation, or post-treatment for atrial fibrillation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risk of bias using the domains outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots, and by using standard Chi² and I² statistics. We performed meta-analyses using fixed-effect and random-effects models; we used standardised mean differences where different scales were used for the same outcome. We assessed the risk of random errors with trial sequential analysis (TSA) and used the GRADE methodology to rate the quality of evidence, reporting it in the 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS:We included six RCTs with a total of 421 patients with various types of atrial fibrillation. All trials were conducted between 2006 and 2016, and had short follow-up (eight weeks to six months). Risks of bias ranged from high risk to low risk.The exercise-based programmes in four trials consisted of both aerobic exercise and resistance training, in one trial consisted of Qi-gong (slow and graceful movements), and in another trial, consisted of inspiratory muscle training.For mortality, very low-quality evidence from six trials suggested no clear difference in deaths between the exercise and no-exercise groups (relative risk (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 15.78; participants = 421; I² = 0%; deaths = 2). Very low-quality evidence from five trials suggested no clear difference between groups for serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.05; participants = 381; I² = 0%; events = 8). Low-quality evidence from two trials suggested no clear difference in health-related quality of life for the Short Form-36 (SF-36) physical component summary measure (mean difference (MD) 1.96, 95% CI -2.50 to 6.42; participants = 224; I² = 69%), or the SF-36 mental component summary measure (MD 1.99, 95% CI -0.48 to 4.46; participants = 224; I² = 0%). Exercise capacity was assessed by cumulated work, or maximal power (Watt), obtained by cycle ergometer, or by six minute walking test, or ergospirometry testing measuring VO2 peak. We found moderate-quality evidence from two studies that exercise-based rehabilitation increased exercise capacity, measured by VO2 peak, more than no exercise (MD 3.76, 95% CI 1.37 to 6.15; participants = 208; I² = 0%); and very low-quality evidence from four studies that exercise-based rehabilitation increased exercise capacity more than no exercise, measured by the six-minute walking test (MD 75.76, 95% CI 14.00 to 137.53; participants = 272; I² = 85%). When we combined the different assessment tools for exercise capacity, we found very low-quality evidence from six trials that exercise-based rehabilitation increased exercise capacity more than no exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.26; participants = 359; I² = 65%). Overall, the quality of the evidence for the outcomes ranged from moderate to very-low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Due to few randomised patients and outcomes, we could not evaluate the real impact of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality or serious adverse events. The evidence showed no clinically relevant effect on health-related quality of life. Pooled data showed a positive effect on the surrogate outcome of physical exercise capacity, but due to the low number of patients and the moderate to very low-quality of the underpinning evidence, we could not be certain of the magnitude of the effect. Future high-quality randomised trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with atrial fibrillation on patient-relevant outcomes

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

Are cardiac rehabilitation pathways influenced by diabetes:A cohort study

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recommended following acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Diabetes is a common long-term condition associated with ACS, and the inclusion of these patients in CR has been less studied. This study examines the referral, uptake, and completion rates in the CR pathway for ACS patients with and without diabetes to identify potential barriers in the CR pathway. METHODS: The study included patients aged 18 or above who were discharged after a diagnosis of ACS in the Central Denmark Region between 1 September 2017 and 31 August 2018. Diabetes information was obtained from three sources. Logistic regression models were used to examine the associations between having diabetes and the three outcomes: non-referral, non-uptake and non-completion. Results were reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: A total of 2447 patients were eligible for the study, of which 457 (18.7%) had diabetes. Only non-uptake was found to be significantly associated with diabetes after adjustment for prespecified variables (OR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.01-1.90). Associations for non-referral (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.87-1.41) and non-completion (OR = 1.06, 95 %CI 0.73-1.53) were not found to be statistically significant between ACS patients with diabetes and those without diabetes. CONCLUSION: This study highlights a significant disparity in the uptake of CR between patients with and without diabetes following ACS, demonstrating that patients with diabetes require early promotion and increased assistance to enrol in CR

The effect of integrated cardiac rehabilitation versus treatment as usual for atrial fibrillation patients treated with ablation:the randomised CopenHeartRFA trial protocol

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation affects almost 2% of the population in the Western world. To preserve sinus rhythm, ablation is undertaken in symptomatic patients. Observational studies show that patients with atrial fibrillation often report a low quality of life and are less prone to be physically active due to fear of triggering fibrillation. Small trials indicate that exercise training has a positive effect on exercise capacity and mental health, and both patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation and in sinus rhythm may benefit from rehabilitation in managing life after ablation. No randomised trials have been published on cardiac rehabilitation for atrial fibrillation patients treated with ablation that includes exercise and psychoeducational components. AIM: To test the effects of an integrated cardiac rehabilitation programme versus treatment as usual for patients with atrial fibrillation treated with ablation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS DESIGN: The trial is a multicentre parallel arm design with 1:1 randomisation to the intervention and control group with blinded outcome assessment. 210 patients treated for atrial fibrillation with radiofrequency ablation will be included. The intervention consists of a rehabilitation programme including four psychoeducative consultations with a specially trained nurse and 12 weeks of individualised exercise training, plus the standard medical follow-up. Patients in the control group will receive the standard medical follow-up. The primary outcome measure is exercise capacity measured by the VO(2) peak. The secondary outcome measure is self-rated mental health measured by the Short Form 36 questionnaire. Postintervention, qualitative interviews will be conducted in 10% of the intervention group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol is approved by the regional research ethics committee (number H-1-2011-135), the Danish Data Protection Agency (reg. nr. 2007-58-0015) and follows the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and may possibly impact on rehabilitation guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01523145