Why the study?
Does a 6-month formalized cardiac rehabilitation program improve coronary risk factors and health-related quality of life in patients completing the program?
Does a 6-month formalized cardiac rehabilitation program improve coronary risk factors and health-related quality of life in patients completing the program?
A 6-month cardiac rehabilitation program provides sustained improvements in clinical risk factors and physical quality of life at 14 months, though mental health benefits may wane over time.
Sustained risk-factor and physical HRQoL gains support program value; mental-component decline is hypothesis-generating and requires prospective confirmation.
Follow-up (F/U) outcome assessment after completion of formalized cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is key to evaluating program effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to assess coronary risk factors (CRF) and health related quality of life (HRQoL) in a cohort of 126 consecutive patients who completed a 6 mo CR program. Eighty patients (63%) completed the F/U, a mean of 14 mos (range 11 - 17 mos) from onset of CR, including lipid profile, weight (kg), physical activity (kcal/wk) and HRQoL (SF-36), with physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component scales reported. At baseline the F/U group had a lower weight and TG, and higher HDL-C than the group who failed to complete F/U. A repeated measures ANOVA assessed the differences in variables over time in the F/U group and a Bonferroni correction was used in the post-hoc analysis. All variables except TG improved over time, baseline to F/U (see table). There was a trend towards improvement in most outcomes between CR completion and F/U except for MCS which declined. In conclusion, in these select CR patients, key clinical and HRQoL outcomes were sustained at F/U, except psycho-social indicators. This infers long-term adherence to risk reduction and behaviour change.Table
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Morrin et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: