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

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

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

Cost-utility analysis of cardiac rehabilitation after conventional heart valve surgery versus usual care

Background While cardiac rehabilitation in patients with ischaemic heart disease and heart failure is considered cost-effective, this evidence may not be transferable to heart valve surgery patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation following heart valve surgery. Design We conducted a cost-utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial of 147 patients who had undergone heart valve surgery and were followed for 6 months. Methods Patients were randomised to cardiac rehabilitation consisting of 12 weeks of physical exercise training and monthly psycho-educational consultations or to usual care. Costs were measured from a societal perspective and quality-adjusted life years were based on the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D). Estimates were presented as means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on bootstrapping. Costs and effect differences were presented in a cost-effectiveness plane and were transformed into net benefit and presented in cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results No statistically significant differences were found in total societal costs (-1609 Euros; 95% CI: -6162 to 2942 Euros) or in quality-adjusted life years (-0.000; 95% CI -0.021 to 0.020) between groups. However, approximately 70% of the cost and effect differences were located below the x-axis in the cost-effectiveness plane, and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that the probability for cost- effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation compared to usual care is at minimum 75%, driven by a tendency towards costs savings. Conclusions Cardiac rehabilitation after heart valve surgery may not have improved health-related quality of life in this study, but is likely to be cost-effective for society, outweighing the extra costs of cardiac rehabilitation