Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease

Grace Dibben, James Faulkner, Neil Oldridge, Karen Rees, David R Thompson, Ann-Dorthe Zwisler, Rod S Taylor, Grace Dibben, James Faulkner, Neil Oldridge, Karen Rees, David R Thompson, Ann-Dorthe Zwisler, Rod S Taylor

Abstract

Background: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the most common cause of death globally. However, with falling CHD mortality rates, an increasing number of people living with CHD may need support to manage their symptoms and prognosis. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) aims to improve the health and outcomes of people with CHD. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2016.

Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of exercise-based CR (exercise training alone or in combination with psychosocial or educational interventions) compared with 'no exercise' control, on mortality, morbidity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in people with CHD.

Search methods: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review, by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases in September 2020. We also searched two clinical trials registers in June 2021.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise-based interventions with at least six months' follow-up, compared with 'no exercise' control. The study population comprised adult men and women who have had a myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or have angina pectoris, or coronary artery disease.

Data collection and analysis: We screened all identified references, extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane methods. We stratified meta-analysis by duration of follow-up: short-term (6 to 12 months); medium-term (> 12 to 36 months); and long-term ( > 3 years), and used meta-regression to explore potential treatment effect modifiers. We used GRADE for primary outcomes at 6 to 12 months (the most common follow-up time point). MAIN RESULTS: This review included 85 trials which randomised 23,430 people with CHD. This latest update identified 22 new trials (7795 participants). The population included predominantly post-MI and post-revascularisation patients, with a mean age ranging from 47 to 77 years. In the last decade, the median percentage of women with CHD has increased from 11% to 17%, but females still account for a similarly small percentage of participants recruited overall ( < 15%). Twenty-one of the included trials were performed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Overall trial reporting was poor, although there was evidence of an improvement in quality over the last decade. The median longest follow-up time was 12 months (range 6 months to 19 years). At short-term follow-up (6 to 12 months), exercise-based CR likely results in a slight reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.04; 25 trials; moderate certainty evidence), a large reduction in MI (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; 22 trials; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 75, 95% CI 47 to 298; high certainty evidence), and a large reduction in all-cause hospitalisation (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; 14 trials; NNTB 12, 95% CI 9 to 21; moderate certainty evidence). Exercise-based CR likely results in little to no difference in risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.14; 15 trials; moderate certainty evidence), CABG (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.27; 20 trials; high certainty evidence), and PCI (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.19; 13 trials; moderate certainty evidence) up to 12 months' follow-up. We are uncertain about the effects of exercise-based CR on cardiovascular hospitalisation, with a wide confidence interval including considerable benefit as well as harm (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.59; low certainty evidence). There was evidence of substantial heterogeneity across trials for cardiovascular hospitalisations (I2 = 53%), and of small study bias for all-cause hospitalisation, but not for all other outcomes. At medium-term follow-up, although there may be little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 15 trials), MI (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.27; 12 trials), PCI (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.35; 6 trials), CABG (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; 9 trials), and all-cause hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 9 trials), a large reduction in cardiovascular mortality was found (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93; 5 trials). Evidence is uncertain for difference in risk of cardiovascular hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.12; 3 trials). At long-term follow-up, although there may be little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10), exercise-based CR may result in a large reduction in cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.78; 8 trials) and MI (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 10 trials). Evidence is uncertain for CABG (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.27; 4 trials), and PCI (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.20; 3 trials). Meta-regression showed benefits in outcomes were independent of CHD case mix, type of CR, exercise dose, follow-up length, publication year, CR setting, study location, sample size or risk of bias. There was evidence that exercise-based CR may slightly increase HRQoL across several subscales (SF-36 mental component, physical functioning, physical performance, general health, vitality, social functioning and mental health scores) up to 12 months' follow-up; however, these may not be clinically important differences. The eight trial-based economic evaluation studies showed exercise-based CR to be a potentially cost-effective use of resources in terms of gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

Authors' conclusions: This updated Cochrane Review supports the conclusions of the previous version, that exercise-based CR provides important benefits to people with CHD, including reduced risk of MI, a likely small reduction in all-cause mortality, and a large reduction in all-cause hospitalisation, along with associated healthcare costs, and improved HRQoL up to 12 months' follow-up. Over longer-term follow-up, benefits may include reductions in cardiovascular mortality and MI. In the last decade, trials were more likely to include females, and be undertaken in LMICs, increasing the generalisability of findings. Well-designed, adequately-reported RCTs of CR in people with CHD more representative of usual clinical practice are still needed. Trials should explicitly report clinical outcomes, including mortality and hospital admissions, and include validated HRQoL outcome measures, especially over longer-term follow-up, and assess costs and cost-effectiveness.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02584192 NCT02778165 NCT03415841 NCT03704025 NCT04271566 NCT04294940 NCT04313777 NCT04330560 NCT04407624 NCT04409210 NCT04441086.

Conflict of interest statement

GD declares no conflicts of interest.

JF declares no conflicts of interest.

NO declares work as Professor at the University of Wisconsin‐Milwaukee, USA. NO also declares being an author of a study that is eligible for inclusion in the work (funding source: European Society of Cardiology & European Association of Preventive Cardiology).

KR declares no conflicts of interest.

DRT declares being an author of a study that is eligible for inclusion in the work.

A‐DZ declares being an author of a study that is eligible for inclusion in the work.

RST declares no conflicts of interest.

Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Figures

1
1
PRISMA flow diagram of study selection process
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
3
3
Funnel plot of comparison: exercise‐based rehabilitation versus usual care, outcome 1.1: all‐cause mortality at 6 to 12 months' follow‐up
4
4
Funnel plot of comparison: exercise‐based rehabilitation versus usual care, outcome 1.1: all‐cause mortality at > 36 months' follow‐up
5
5
Funnel plot of comparison: exercise‐based rehabilitation versus usual care, outcome 1.1: all‐cause mortality at > 12 to 36 months' follow‐up
6
6
Funnel plot of comparison: exercise‐based rehabilitation versus usual care, outcome 1.2: cardiovascular mortality at 6 to 12 months' follow‐up
7
7
Funnel plot of comparison: exercise‐based rehabilitation versus usual care, outcome 1.3: myocardial infarction at 6 to 12 months' follow‐up
8
8
Funnel plot of comparison: exercise‐based rehabilitation versus usual care, outcome 1.1: myocardial infarction at > 12 to 36 months' follow‐up
9
9
Funnel plot of comparison: exercise‐based rehabilitation versus usual care, outcome 1.1: myocardial infarction at > 36 months' follow‐up
10
10
Funnel plot of comparison: exercise‐based rehabilitation versus usual care, outcome 1.1: CABG at 6 to 12 months' follow‐up
11
11
Funnel plot of comparison: exercise‐based rehabilitation versus usual care, outcome 1.1: PCI at 6 to 12 months' follow‐up
12
12
Funnel plot of comparison: exercise‐based rehabilitation versus usual care, outcome 1.1: all‐cause hospitalisation at 6 to 12 months' follow‐up
1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: Exercise‐based rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 1: All‐cause mortality
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: Exercise‐based rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 2: Cardiovascular mortality
1.3. Analysis
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1: Exercise‐based rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 3: Fatal and/or nonfatal MI
1.4. Analysis
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1: Exercise‐based rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 4: CABG
1.5. Analysis
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1: Exercise‐based rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 5: PCI
1.6. Analysis
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1: Exercise‐based rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 6: All‐cause hospital admissions
1.7. Analysis
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1: Exercise‐based rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 7: Cardiovascular hospital admissions
1.8. Analysis
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1: Exercise‐based rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 8: HRQoL SF‐36 summary scores at 6 to 12 months follow up
1.9. Analysis
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1: Exercise‐based rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 9: HRQoL SF‐36 8 domains at 6 to 12 months follow up
1.10. Analysis
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1: Exercise‐based rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 10: HRQoL EQ‐5D at 6 to 12 months follow up

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner