Referral Rate and Outcomes of Cardiac Rehabilitation After Cardiac Catheterization in a Large Canadian City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) for patients with coronary artery disease are extensive and compelling, demonstrating reductions in mortality. However, some reports suggest that only 10% to 20% of eligible patients currently participate in formal CR programs. The purpose of this study was to identify the proportion of patients referred to CR in a large Canadian city, and to determine their statistically adjusted survival rates relative to patients not referred to CR. METHODS: Subjects eligible for this study included all adult residents with coronary artery disease from 1995 to 1999 in the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease registry. All 5,081 patients who survived 6 months or more after catheterization were included in the analysis. Survival data were adjusted using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Referral to a CR program (28.9% of patients) was significantly more likely for young male patients who had undergone a prior revascularization procedure, presented with an ejection fraction exceeding 50%, and did not report cerebrovascular, peripheral vascular, or renal disease. Crude hazard ratios indicated that referral to a CR program remained significantly associated with lower mortality after control was used for clinical, anatomic, treatment and comorbid conditions recorded at catheterization (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.90; P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the proven efficacy of CR in clinical trials, fewer than one third of the patients undergoing cardiac catheterization are referred to a CR program. The better survival outcomes noted for patients referred to CR suggests that there is an opportunity to improve care and outcomes through increased referral of patients to such programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".