Why the study?
Does cardiovascular rehabilitation improve health-related quality of life similarly in patients with and without type 2 diabetes?
Does cardiovascular rehabilitation improve health-related quality of life similarly in patients with and without type 2 diabetes?
CR associated with similar HRQoL gains regardless of diabetes; leaves open causal effects and needs RCTs before changing practice.
PURPOSE: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States and results in substantial healthcare expenditures. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important aspect in long-term recovery for patients with cardiovascular disease. As such, improvement in HRQoL is a relevant outcome for determining cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR) program efficacy. Increasingly, diabetic patients are participating in CR and face additional challenges to HRQoL, yet there is a lack of research addressing program efficacy in this population. This study tested the hypothesis that CR would effect a favorable change in HRQoL for both diabetic (D; n = 37) and nondiabetic (N-D; n = 58) patients. Furthermore, we tested the hypothesis that the D group would demonstrate a greater overall change compared with the N-D group. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we reviewed the charts of 95 patients who completed a CR program and collected HRQoL measures using the COOP questionnaire, where lower scores indicate higher HRQoL. RESULTS: After CR, COOP scores for both the N-D improved (pre: 20.39 ± 0.79 vs post: 16.06 ± 0.75; P < .05) and D (pre: 20.92 ± 0.88 vs post: 15.84 ± 0.80; P < .05). HRQoL was not different between groups at the start of the program (P = .88) or at the end (P = .58), and thus, the improvement in HRQoL was not different between groups (P = .44). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that D and N-D patients do not differ in their HRQoL at the start or end of CR, and that the 2 groups show similar improvements from attending the program. Larger sample studies are needed to confirm these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wald et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: