Why the study?
Outpatient cardiac rehabilitation remains underutilized and largely unchanged for 50 years despite dramatic advances in MI care, creating an incongruence with contemporary clinical needs.
This review highlights the need for health systems reform to modernize cardiac rehabilitation programs to align with contemporary myocardial infarction care.
Legacy cardiac rehab structures may mismatch modern MI care; leaves open whether redesign improves outcomes in updated trials.
Contemporary myocardial infarction (MI) care and management has evolved dramatically since the 1950's; yet outpatient rehabilitation remains underutilized. Deepening our understanding of the origins and history of cardiac rehabilitation highlights a contemporary shift required for policy and practice related to secondary prevention of coronary disease in light of societal changes as well as medical, digital and surgical advancements. Contemporary "cardiac rehabilitation" began when bed rest and physical inactivity was recommended and commonplace for MI survivors. Today, most patients who survive an MI, undergo reperfusion therapy, a short inpatient stay and are discharged with minimal physical morbidity. Despite this, the majority of modern day programs continue to be structured in the same way they have been for the past 50 years and this model has become incongruent with the contemporary context, especially in the COVID-19 era. This review aims to describe the historical foundations of cardiac rehabilitation to inform solutions and meet the demands of contemporary MI management. Delivering health systems reform to address modernization is current healthcare challenge where a united and interdisciplinary effort is needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Redfern et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: