Key result
Referral for cardiac rehabilitation was associated with improved survival in the 2003 cohort of acute MI patients (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.66-0.96; P=0.02), but not in the 1995 cohort.
Why the study?
Does referral for cardiac rehabilitation improve long-term survival in patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=4,251)
Does referral for cardiac rehabilitation improve long-term survival in patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction?
Hazard Ratio: 0.8 (95% CI 0.66–0.96)
p-value: p=0.02
Referral for cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction was associated with improved long-term survival in a 2003 cohort but not a 1995 cohort, highlighting its benefit in the context of contemporary post-MI management.
May support CR referral in contemporary MI care; leaves open causality and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend referral for cardiac rehabilitation (CR) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, the impact on long-term survival after CR referral has not been adjusted by time-variance. We compared the effects of CR referral after hospitalization for AMI in two consecutive decades. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 2196 and 2055 patients were recruited in the prospective observational studies of the Evaluation of the Methods and Management of Acute Coronary Events (EMMACE) -1 and 2 in 1995 and 2003, (1995: median age 72 years, 39% women, 74% referred vs 2003: median age 71 years, 36% women, 64% referred) and followed up through September 2010. Survival functions showed CR referral to be an independent predictor for survival in 2003, but not in 1995 (hazard ratio (HR), 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.70 to 1.17, p = 0.44 in 1995 vs HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.96, p = 0.02 in 2003) when patients entered the model at three months after discharge and had a common exit at 90 months. Significant positive and negative predictors for CR referral were beta-blocker prescription (+), reperfusion (+) and age (-) in 1995, and reperfusion (+), revascularization (+), heart failure (HF) (+), antiplatelets (+), angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) (+), statins (+), diabetes (-), and the modified Global Registry of Acute Cardiac Events (GRACE) risk score (-) in 2003. CONCLUSIONS: CR referral was associated with improved survival in 2003, but not in 1995 in patients admitted with acute MI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lewinter et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction (n=4,251). Referral for cardiac rehabilitation vs. No referral for cardiac rehabilitation was evaluated on Survival (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96, p=0.02). Referral for cardiac rehabilitation was associated with improved survival in the 2003 cohort of acute MI patients (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.66-0.96; P=0.02), but not in the 1995 cohort.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: