Cardiac Rehabilitation Attendance and Outcomes in Coronary Artery Disease Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an efficacious yet underused treatment for patients with coronary artery disease. The objective of this study was to determine the association between CR completion and mortality and resource use. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 5886 subjects (20.8% female; mean age, 60.6 years) who had undergone angiography and were referred for CR in Calgary, AB, Canada, between 1996 and 2009. Outcomes of interest included freedom from emergency room visits, hospitalization, and survival in CR completers versus noncompleters, adjusted for clinical covariates, treatment strategy, and coronary anatomy. Hazard ratios for events for CR completers versus noncompleters were also constructed. A propensity model was used to match completers to noncompleters on baseline characteristics, and each outcome was compared between propensity-matched groups. Of the subjects referred for CR, 2900 (49.3%) completed the program, and an additional 554 subjects started but did not complete CR. CR completion was associated with a lower risk of death, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.70). CR completion was also associated with a decreased risk of all-cause hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.84) and cardiac hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.83) but not with emergency room visits. Propensity-matched analysis demonstrated a persistent association between CR completion and reduced mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Among those coronary artery disease patients referred, CR completion is associated with improved survival and decreased hospitalization. There is a need to explore reasons for nonattendance and to test interventions to improve attendance after referral.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".