Key result
Cardiac rehabilitation significantly reduced the incidence of ICD shock therapy compared to non-exercise therapy (15.6% vs 23.0%, OR 0.68) in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators.
Why the study?
ICD therapy reduces mortality in fatal ventricular arrhythmias but impairs quality of life through shock therapy, prompting evaluation of cardiac rehabilitation in ICD and CRT-D patients.
Does cardiac rehabilitation improve outcomes and safety in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators?
Does cardiac rehabilitation improve outcomes and safety in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators?
Cardiac rehabilitation is safe and beneficial for ICD patients, improving QOL, increasing exercise capacity, and potentially reducing the incidence of appropriate shocks.
May support cardiac rehabilitation in ICD patients; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ishikawa et al. (2019) conducted a review in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) or CRT-D (n=2,569). Cardiac rehabilitation (exercise therapy) vs. Usual care / non-exercise therapy was evaluated on Incidence of ICD shock therapy (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46-0.90, p=<0.001). Cardiac rehabilitation significantly reduced the incidence of ICD shock therapy compared to non-exercise therapy (15.6% vs 23.0%, OR 0.68) in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: