Abstract | BACKGROUND: Current guidelines broadly recommend comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation (CCR), although evidence for this is still limited. We investigated the 12-month effect of hospital-based CCR versus usual care (UC) for a broadly defined group of cardiac patients within the modern therapeutic era of cardiology. METHODS: RESULTS: We randomized 380 patients to CCR versus 390 to UC. Randomization was well balanced. The primary outcome occurred in 31% of both groups (relative risk 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.26). Compared with the UC group, CCR significantly reduced length of stay by 15% (95% confidence interval 1.1%-27.1%, P = .04), mean number of cardiac risk factors above target (4.5 vs 4.1, P = .01), patients with systolic blood pressure below target (P = .003), physically inactivity (P = .01), and unhealthy dietary habits (P = .0003). Short-Form-36 and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: At 12 months, the CCR and UC groups did not differ regarding the primary composite outcome. Comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation significantly reduced length of hospital stay and improved cardiac risk factors.
|
Authors | Ann-Dorthe Olsen Zwisler, Anne Merete Boas Soja, Søren Rasmussen, Marianne Frederiksen, Sadollah Abedini, Sadollah Abadini, Jon Appel, Hanne Rasmussen, Christian Gluud, Lars Iversen, Bjarne Sigurd, Mette Madsen, Jørgen Fischer-Hansen, DANREHAB Group |
Journal | American heart journal
(Am Heart J)
Vol. 155
Issue 6
Pg. 1106-13
(Jun 2008)
ISSN: 1097-6744 [Electronic] United States |
PMID | 18513526
(Publication Type: Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't)
|
Topics |
- Adult
- Aged
- Aged, 80 and over
- Female
- Heart Failure
(rehabilitation)
- Hospitalization
- Humans
- Male
- Middle Aged
- Myocardial Ischemia
(rehabilitation)
- Risk Factors
- Severity of Illness Index
|