Effects of the Strong Hearts program after a major cardiovascular event in patients with cardiovascular disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and intensive cardiac rehabilitation (ICR) are secondary prevention interventions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) with a class 1a indication yet suboptimal utilization. To date, there are only three approved ICR programs. Alternative programing should be explored to increase enrollment and adherence in these interventions. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the Strong Hearts program in cardiovascular patients following a major cardiovascular event. METHODS: One hundred ninety-seven (n = 197) participants were enrolled in this prospective, nonrandomized study. Patients were eligible for participation if they were referred by a physician after a major cardiovascular event, defined as any of the following: (1) acute myocardial infarction (MI) within the preceding 12 months; (2) current stable or unstable angina pectoris; (3) heart valve procedure; (4) percutaneous intervention of any kind; (5) heart transplant; (6) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG); or (7) congestive heart failure (CHF) with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. Participants were asked to attend program visits four times per week for 9 weeks. Visits consisted of individualized exercise and intensive healthy lifestyle education. Paired t tests were utilized to compare pre- and postprogram outcome measures. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight (n = 128) participants completed the program within the 9-week time frame and their outcome measures were included in the data analysis. Among this, 35.2% participants were female and 64.8% were male. The mean age was 65 (range, 19-88). Qualifying diagnoses were percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; 60, 46.9%), CABG (33, 25.8%), angina (24, 18.8%), valve procedures (8, 6.2%), and CHF (3, 2.3%). After implementation of the intervention, statistically significant decreases in weight (P < .001), body mass index (BMI, P < .001), waist circumference (P < .001), triglycerides (P = .01), systolic blood pressure (SBP, P <.001), diastolic blood pressure (DBP, P = .002), total fat mass (P < .001), Dartmouth Quality of Life Index P < .001), and cardiac depression scores (P = .044) were detected. In other instances, there were statistically significant increases across time for the clinical parameters of high-density lipoprotein (HDL, P = .02), Vitamin D (P = .001), metabolic equivalents (METS, P < .001), Duke activity scores (P < .001), and Rate Your Plate nutrition scores (P < .001). There were no significant changes across time for total cholesterol (P = .17), low-density lipoprotein (LDL, P = .21), A1c (P = .27), or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) total lean mass (P = .86). CONCLUSIONS: The 9-week structured program resulted in significant cardiovascular benefit to patients with CVD by reducing cardiac risk factors, increasing exercise capacity, and improving quality of life.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".