Key result
A standard 3-month cardiac rehabilitation program had a 63-67% probability of being more cost-effective than a 12-month distributed program in patients with coronary artery disease.
Why the study?
Is a standard 3-month cardiac rehabilitation program more cost-effective than a 12-month distributed program in patients with coronary artery disease?
Population
392 patients with coronary artery disease, mean age 58 years
Comparison
Standard 3-month cardiac rehabilitation program vs Cardiac rehabilitation program distributed over…
Design
RCT, Randomized to either SCR (n=196) or DCR (n=196)
Follow-up
24 months
Authors
Loading...
Supports preferring 3-month cardiac rehabilitation for cost-effectiveness in CAD; extends RCT evidence on optimal program duration.
RCT (n=392)
randomized
Is a standard 3-month cardiac rehabilitation program more cost-effective than a 12-month distributed program in patients with coronary artery disease?
A standard 3-month cardiac rehabilitation program is generally more cost-effective than a 12-month distributed program, though triaging based on risk and demographics may optimize value.
Papadakis et al. (2008) conducted an RCT in coronary artery disease (n=392). Standard 3-month cardiac rehabilitation program (SCR) vs. Distributed 12-month cardiac rehabilitation program (DCR) was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness. A standard 3-month cardiac rehabilitation program had a 63-67% probability of being more cost-effective than a 12-month distributed program in patients with coronary artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: