Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs and their Core Components for Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Although earlier reviews establish that patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) respond well to cardiac rehabilitation (CR), the comparative effectiveness of different CR programs or their individual core components of CR have not been evaluated. Methods A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the core components of CR (nutritional counseling (NC), risk factor modification (RFM), psychosocial management (PM), patient education (PE), and exercise training (ET)) was undertaken. The core components were evaluated individually and as part of broader CR treatment categories (“exercise-only” CR programs, “comprehensive” CR programs, and “secondary prevention programs without exercise”). Published RCTs were identified from database inception dates (Medline, Medline In-Process, the Cochrane database, Embase, CINAHL, Sci-Expanded, PsychINFO, the Web of Science) to July 2014. Endpoints included measures of mortality (all-cause and CV) and morbidity (myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, and hospitalization). Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were used as summary measures. iii Findings 136 trials (50,054 participants) and 169 trials (62,149 participants) were included for the NMAs of the overall CR treatment strategies and for the core components of CR respectively. “Exercise-only” and “comprehensive” CR programs significantly reduced the hazards of all-cause mortality, CV mortality, total MI, fatal MI, non-fatal MI, revascularization, total and CV hospitalization by 25-54% when compared to usual care, and significantly reduced the hazard of all-cause mortality by 23%-26% when compared to “secondary prevention programs without exercise”. “Secondary prevention programs without exercise” significantly reduced the hazards of all-cause and CV mortality, total MI, non-fatal MI, all-cause and CV hospitalization by 20%-43% when compared to usual care. The core component of PM significantly reduced the hazards of all-cause mortality, all-cause and CV hospitalization by 31%, 33% and 50% respectively. RFM and PE significantly reduced the hazards of total MI and all-cause hospitalization by 37% and 23% respectively. Interpretation These findings confirm the central role of CR in patients with CHD, emphasize the central role of exercise training in CR, elevate the role of other key CR core components, especially psychosocial management, and establish the superiority of exercise-based CR programs to “secondary prevention programs without exercise”.
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 | 0.023 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".