Quality indicators of a cardiac rehabilitation program in women with coronary heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Cardiac rehabilitation programs (CRP) are well known to improve functional status and prognosis after a cardiovascular event. This programs are class IA recommendation. However, many studies have demonstrated that women are less likely to stick to a CRP. Purpose To compare baseline characteristics between men and women participating in a cardiac rehabilitation program and to determine whether there are gender differences in the benefits obtained after the program. Methods Using data from our Department of CRP, we analysed a total of 1091 patients referred between 2015 and 2018 to our center CRP after a cardiovascular diagnosis. Clinical, analytical and echocardiographic outcomes were collected. We defined benefit as the achievement of the target levels established for each cardiovascular risk factor (CVRF) as well as improvement in the exercise capacity. This capacity was evaluated with exercise tests and maximum O2 uptake at the beginning and at the end of the CPR. Results Between 2015 and 2018, 189 (17.3%) of them women with a mean age of 62 years were enrolled in the CRP. There were no significant gender differences in mean age or incidence of CVRF. Likewise, there weren't differences in cardiovascular diagnosis, risk stratification, left ventricular ejection fraction or exercise test performed before the program. In the results after CRP there were no important gender differences in the percentage of patients who achieved the quality indicators described as HbA1c <7.0%, systolic arterial pressure <140 mmHg, diastolic arterial pressure <90 mmHg. Percentage of LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl was significantly higher in male patients. Both in men and women an improvement of the second exercise test result was observed. Conclusions 1. Men and women who suffer from a coronary heart disease have similar clinical characteristics. 2. Among patients with coronary heart disease who attended a cardiac rehabilitation program there were no significant gender differences in the benefits obtained after the program. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".