Key result
Cardiac rehab effects in women cannot be meta-analyzed because only two trials report sex-specific data.
Why the study?
Does comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation reduce mortality and morbidity in women?
Systematic Review
Does comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation reduce mortality and morbidity in women?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
There is a severe lack of sex-specific data from randomized trials on the effects of cardiac rehabilitation in women, precluding a formal meta-analysis.
PURPOSE: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is associated with significant reductions in mortality and morbidity, but few women are included in trials. Therefore, a meta-analysis of the effects of CR in women is warranted. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials from recent systematic reviews that included women attending comprehensive CR and reporting the outcomes of mortality and morbidity (hospitalization, myocardial infarction, bypass surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention) were considered for inclusion. An updated search of the literature was performed from the end date of the last search, based on the Cochrane strategy. Authors were contacted to provide results on women where none were reported. RESULTS: On the basis of 2 recent systematic reviews, 80 trials were identified. Fifty (62.5%) were excluded, most commonly due to lack of inclusion of women (n = 18; 22.5%). One trial was identified through the search update. Of 31 potential trials meeting inclusion criteria, 1 reported results on women and many were old, and hence data by sex were no longer available. Ultimately, data for women were available in 2 trials. Therefore, it was deemed inappropriate to undertake this meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This review corroborates the dearth of data on CR in women despite the fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in women. Given the totality of evidence, including reductions in mortality and morbidity in nonrandomized studies, and evidence of benefit for other important outcomes such as functional capacity and quality of life, women should continue to be referred to CR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ghisi et al. (2018) conducted a systematic review in Cardiovascular disease. Comprehensive Cardiac Rehabilitation vs. Control or comparison arm (e.g., enhanced usual care) was evaluated on All-cause and CV mortality, all-cause and CV hospitalization, non-fatal MI, CABG, or PCI. An attempted meta-analysis of cardiac rehabilitation in women could not be completed because data by sex were only available in 2 of 31 eligible randomized controlled trials.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: