Key result
Cardiac rehabilitation linked to markedly reduced morbidity and mortality after ACS despite low utilization.
Why the study?
Despite proven benefits of cardiac rehabilitation after acute coronary syndrome, only a minority of eligible patients receive these services.
Does cardiac rehabilitation reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
Does cardiac rehabilitation reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
Cardiac rehabilitation is a beneficial but underutilized intervention for reducing morbidity and mortality in patients following acute coronary syndrome.
Supports wider cardiac rehabilitation referral after ACS; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm causality and guide implementation.
Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is the process by which patients with acute coronary syndrome are restored to and maintained at their physiological, psychological, social, sexual, emotional and vocational status. The benefits of CR have been demonstrated in a number of studies. Acute coronary syndromes (ACS), which include unstable angina and myocardial infarction with or without ST-segment elevation, are life-threatening and most common disorders that remain a source of high morbidity and mortality despite advances in treatment. CR participation is associated with a markedly reduced of morbidity and mortality after ACS. Cardiac rehabilitation is offered to individuals after ACS to aid recovery and reduce the likelihood of further cardiac illness. However, despite the proven benefits of CR services, only a minority of eligible patients receive these services. [Med-Science 2016; 5(1.000): 244-52]
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Semra Aktürk (2015) conducted a review in Acute Coronary Syndrome. Cardiac rehabilitation was evaluated. Cardiac rehabilitation participation is associated with markedly reduced morbidity and mortality after acute coronary syndrome, though only a minority of eligible patients receive these services.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: