Key result
Cardiac rehabilitation improves 6-month physical quality of life by ~7 points over usual care.
Why the study?
The study aimed to analyze the effect of cardiac rehabilitation programs on health-related quality of life after a coronary cardiac event using patient-reported outcome measures for up to 6 months of evaluation.
Does a cardiac rehabilitation program improve physical and mental components of quality of life in adult patients after a coronary cardiac event?
Meta-Analysis (n=2,260)
Yes
Does a cardiac rehabilitation program improve physical and mental components of quality of life in adult patients after a coronary cardiac event?
Participation in a phase II cardiac rehabilitation program significantly improves the physical component of health-related quality of life at 6 months post-coronary event, underscoring the value of patient-reported outcome measures in tracking recovery.
Cardiac rehabilitation improves physical HRQoL at 6 months post-coronary event; reinforces RCT evidence for routine integration into care.
Background: This study aimed to analyze the effect of cardiac rehabilitation programs on the health-related quality of life of patients after a coronary cardiac event using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for up to 6 months of evaluation. Methods: A comprehensive search was carried out in the MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled trials comparing the cardiac rehabilitation program with usual care. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies for inclusion, risk of bias using the Cochrane tool, and quality of evidence through the GRADE system. A meta-analysis was performed on studies assessing health-related quality of life with the SF-12 (Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary) up to 6 months after the program. Results: Twelve studies encompassed 2260 patients who participated in a cardiac rehabilitation program after a coronary event, with a mean age of 60.06 years. The generic PROMs used to assess quality of life were the SF-12, SF-36, EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and GHQ, and the specific coronary heart disease PROMs were MacNew and HeartQoL. There was a positive effect of participation in cardiac rehabilitation on the physical component of health-related quality of life at 6 months (MD [7.02]; p = 0.04] and on the mental component (MD [1.06]; p = 0.82) after applying the SF-12. Conclusions: This study highlights the significant benefits of cardiac rehabilitation programs on health-related quality of life, particularly in the physical domain at 6 months. Assessing outcomes over time through PROMs after coronary heart events is essential, thus making it possible to personalize patients’ care and improve their health status.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moreira et al. (2024) conducted a meta-analysis in Coronary cardiac event (n=2,260). Cardiac rehabilitation programs vs. Usual care was evaluated on Physical component of health-related quality of life (SF-12) at 6 months (MD 7.02, 95% CI 0.41, 13.62, p=0.04). Cardiac rehabilitation programs significantly improved the physical component of health-related quality of life at 6 months compared to usual care (MD 7.02, 95% CI 0.41-13.62, p=0.04).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: