Key result
Alternative cardiac rehab eligibility remains unchanged over time with under 10% of CHD patients qualifying.
Why the study?
Although home-based CR is suggested as appropriate for low- and moderate-risk patients, paradigms to define such individuals with coronary heart disease are lacking.
Observational
No
Absolute Event Rate: 9.3% vs 7.6%
p-value: p=0.08
A small proportion (7.6-9.3%) of coronary heart disease patients in traditional cardiac rehabilitation meet all 11 criteria for being low-risk, identifying a specific target population that may be suitable for alternative home-based rehabilitation models.
Restricts alternative models to few patients; leaves open refined eligibility criteria for broader home-based trials.
Introduction: Although a recent joint society scientific statement (the American Association of Cardiovascular Pulmonary Rehabilitation, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology) suggests home-based cardiac rehab (CR) is appropriate for low- and moderate-risk patients, there are no paradigms to define such individuals with coronary heart disease. Methods: We reviewed a decade of data from all patients with coronary heart disease enrolled in a single CR center (University of Michigan) to identify the prevalence of low-risk factors, which may inform on consideration for participation in alternative models of CR. Low-risk factors included not having any of the following: metabolic syndrome, presence of implantable cardioverter defibrillator or permanent pacemaker, active smoking, prior stroke, congestive heart failure, obesity, advanced renal disease, poor exercise capacity, peripheral arterial disease, angina, or clinical depression (MI'S SCOREPAD). We report on the proportion of participants with these risk factors and the proportion with all of these low-risk factors. Results: = 0.08). Additionally, 9.3% of the 2011-2012 cohort and 7.6% of the 2018-2019 cohort had all 11 of the low-risk factors. Conclusion: In this observational study, we provide a first paradigm of identifying factors among coronary heart disease patients that may be considered low-risk and likely high-gain for participation in alternative models of CR. Further work is needed to track clinical outcomes in patients with these factors to determine thresholds for enrolling participants in alternative forms of CR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brandt et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Coronary heart disease. MI'S SCOREPAD criteria was evaluated on Proportion of participants with all 11 low-risk factors (p=0.08). Among patients with coronary heart disease, 9.3% of the 2011-2012 cohort and 7.6% of the 2018-2019 cohort met all 11 low-risk criteria for alternative cardiac rehabilitation models.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: