Key result
Pre-participation withdrawal from cardiac rehabilitation was similar between patients with PAD and matched CAD (46% vs 43%, P=.49), but higher than in unmatched CAD patients (28%, P<.001).
Why the study?
Despite the mortality and cost-effectiveness benefits of cardiac rehabilitation in peripheral artery disease, data on adherence and completion in patients with and without concomitant coronary artery disease remain limited.
Does the presence of PAD or PAD/CAD increase pre-participation withdrawal and noncompletion of cardiac rehabilitation compared to CAD alone?
Cohort (n=15,368)
Does the presence of PAD or PAD/CAD increase pre-participation withdrawal and noncompletion of cardiac rehabilitation compared to CAD alone?
Absolute Event Rate: 46% vs 43%
p-value: p=.49
Patients with PAD have higher rates of cardiac rehabilitation pre-participation withdrawal compared to general CAD patients, but this is likely driven by their complex medical profile rather than PAD alone, as matched cohorts showed similar rates.
Comorbidity matching equalizes withdrawal rates; extends evidence that excess dropout reflects overall complexity rather than PAD alone.
PURPOSE: Despite the mortality benefit of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) participation, as well as its cost-effectiveness for people with peripheral artery disease (PAD), there are limited data on adherence and completion of CR in those with and without concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD). The objective of this study was to compare CR pre-participation withdrawal and noncompletion between patients with PAD and concomitant PAD and CAD (PAD/CAD) versus matched and unmatched patients with CAD (uCAD). METHODS: Consecutively referred patients between 2006-2017 with PAD (n = 271) and PAD/CAD (n = 610) were matched to CAD by age, sex, diabetes, smoking status, and referral year. The uCAD (n = 14 487) group was included for comparison. Reasons for withdrawal were ascertained by interview. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in pre-participation withdrawal between PAD and matched CAD (46 vs 43%, P = .49), nor in noncompletion (22 vs 18%, P = .28). Results were similar for PAD/CAD and matched CAD (withdrawal: 36 vs 34%, P = .37) and (noncompletion: 25 vs 23%, P = .46). A smaller proportion of patients with uCAD withdrew (28%) than patients with PAD ( P < .001) and PAD/CAD ( P < .001), with no difference in noncompletion ( P > .40, both). There were no differences between PAD and PAD/CAD and their matched counterparts for medical and nonmedical reasons for withdrawal and noncompletion ( P ≥ .25, all). CONCLUSION: Pre-participation withdrawal rates were similar between patients with PAD, PAD/CAD, and their matched cohorts but greater than patients with uCAD. Once patients started CR, there were similar completion rates among all groups. Reports that patients with PAD are less likely to start CR may be related to their complex medical profile rather than PAD alone. Strategies to improve participation among patients with PAD should focus on the immediate post-referral period.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nguyen et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Peripheral artery disease and coronary artery disease (n=15,368). Peripheral artery disease (PAD) vs. Matched and unmatched coronary artery disease (CAD) was evaluated on Pre-participation withdrawal (p=.49). Pre-participation withdrawal from cardiac rehabilitation was similar between patients with PAD and matched CAD (46% vs 43%, P=.49), but higher than in unmatched CAD patients (28%, P<.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: