Key result
Cardiac rehabilitation fails to improve quality of life over standard care in adults with CIEDs.
Why the study?
The impact of cardiac rehabilitation including exercise training on quality of life in adults with cardiac implantable electronic devices was unclear.
Does cardiac rehabilitation improve quality of life in adults with cardiac implantable electronic devices?
Meta-Analysis (n=469)
Does cardiac rehabilitation improve quality of life in adults with cardiac implantable electronic devices?
Standardized Mean Difference: 0.17 (95% CI -0.31–0.65)
p-value: p=not significant
Cardiac rehabilitation did not show a statistically significant benefit for improving quality of life in adults with cardiac implantable electronic devices, though the evidence is limited by study heterogeneity.
A BSTRACT Aims: To evaluate the impact of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), including exercise training, on quality of life (QOL) in adults with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Methods: A literature search was conducted on August 1, 2025, using PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials through Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews. We included randomized controlled trials written in English that involved CR during the maintenance phase, including exercise training, in adults with CIEDs and assessed QOL at two time points. Risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The meta-analysis included pooled analysis of standardized mean differences (SMDs) and analysis limited to the physical component score (PCS)/mental component score (MCS) domains of Short Form-36 (SF-36). Results: Among 12 studies identified involving 922 participants, seven studies (469 participants) were finally included in the meta-analysis. Three studies showed significant improvement in QOL in the CR group. However, the meta-analysis of SMD showed that the effect of CR on QOL improvement was not significant (SMD = 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.31–0.65), with moderate heterogeneity ( I 2 = 54%). Meta-analysis of the SF-36 also showed no significant effect of CR on QOL (PCS: mean difference [MD] =0.22, 95% CI: −1.96–2.40; MCS: MD = 0.30, 95% CI: −3.70–4.29. Conclusions: The results of the present meta-analysis showed no statistically significant benefits of CR for adults with CIEDs. However, due to several limitations in the studies, further research is needed to clarify the effects of CR on QOL in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hidekuma et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) (n=469). Cardiac rehabilitation including exercise training vs. Standard medical care without exercise training was evaluated on Quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.31-0.65, p=not significant). Cardiac rehabilitation including exercise training did not significantly improve quality of life compared to standard medical care in adults with cardiac implantable electronic devices (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.65).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: