Key result
Following a 3-week cardiac rehabilitation program, patients with STE-ACS and NSTE-ACS achieved similar rates of LDL-C <100 mg/dL at discharge (75.3% vs 76.2%, respectively; not significant).
Why the study?
What are the differences in risk factor management and target achievement between STE-ACS and NSTE-ACS patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation?
Observational (n=7,950)
Yes
What are the differences in risk factor management and target achievement between STE-ACS and NSTE-ACS patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation?
Absolute Event Rate: 75.3% vs 76.2%
p-value: p=not significant
Both STE-ACS and NSTE-ACS patients benefit from cardiac rehabilitation with improvements in lipid profiles, blood pressure, and physical fitness, despite moderate differences in baseline characteristics.
Comparable LDL-C goal attainment after short cardiac rehabilitation supports uniform lipid strategies across ACS subtypes; leaves open differential responses in other risk factors.
BACKGROUND: Current data on the management of patients in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) after an acute hospital stay due to ST-segment elevation or non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (STE-ACS or NSTE-ACS) are limited. We aimed to describe patient characteristics, risk factor management, and lipid target achievement of patients in CR in Germany and compare the 2 groups. HYPOTHESIS: With respect to the risk factor pattern and treatment effects during a CR stay, there are important differences between STE-ACS and NSTE-ACS patients. METHODS: Comparison of 7950 patients by STE-ACS or NSTE-ACS status in the Transparency Registry to Objectify Guideline-Oriented Risk Factor Management registry (2010) who underwent an inpatient CR period of about 3 weeks. RESULTS: STE-ACS patients compared to NSTE-ACS patients were significantly younger (60.5 vs 64.4 years, P < 0.0001), and had diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or any risk factor (exception: smoking) less often. At discharge, in STE-ACS compared to NSTE-ACS patients, the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <100 mg/dL goal was achieved by 75.3% and 76.2%, respectively (LDL-C <70 mg/dL by 27.7% and 27.4%), the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal of >50 mg/dL in women and >40 mg/dL in men was achieved by 49.3% and 49.0%, respectively, and the triglycerides goal of <150 mg/dl was achieved by 72.3% and 74.3%, respectively (all comparisons not significant). Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure were 121/74 and 123/74 mm Hg, respectively (P < 0.0001 systolic, diastolic not significant). The maximum exercise capacity was 110 and 102 W, respectively (P < 0.0001), and the maximum walking distance was 581 and 451 meters, respectively (P value not significant). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with STE-ACS and NSTE-ACS differed moderately in their baseline characteristics. Both groups benefited from the participation in CR, as their lipid profile, blood pressure, and physical fitness improved.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reibis et al. (2014) conducted an observational in ST-segment elevation or non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (n=7,950). ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (STE-ACS) vs. Non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) was evaluated on Achievement of LDL-C <100 mg/dL goal at discharge (p=not significant). Following a 3-week cardiac rehabilitation program, patients with STE-ACS and NSTE-ACS achieved similar rates of LDL-C <100 mg/dL at discharge (75.3% vs 76.2%, respectively; not significant).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: