Utility of Cardiac Rehabilitation Following Surgical Treatment of Infective Endocarditis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infective endocarditis (IE) is a life-threatening cardiac infection. The incidence of IE is increasing due to complex sociodemographic shifts, including increases in intravenous drug use (IVDU) attributed to opioid epidemics. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a comprehensive form of secondary prevention for heart disease. Current guidelines suggest that CR may be beneficial in the recovery from IE, but supporting evidence is limited. Given the utility of CR in the recovery from other cardiac conditions and the unique characteristics of patients with IE, this narrative review summarizes the existing data on the use of CR following surgical treatment of IE. The existing literature is limited to the CopenHeartIE randomized clinical trial (RCT) and four case reports. Thus, to our knowledge, this represents the first review to focus specifically on CR in the context of IE. The CopenHeartIE RCT found that patients receiving CR showed greater improvements in levels of physical fatigue, general fatigue, maximal power, systolic blood pressure, and some questionnaire scores than the control group. The results of multiple case reports represent unique and extreme cases of IE from which support for the use of CR following IE can be drawn from the relative successes of each patient. Moreover, it is important to consider that the complex social needs of the IE population may require additional psychosocial support, which can be achieved by integrating social workers into the multidisciplinary CR team. While further research is warranted, the existing evidence supports the use of CR as part of the comprehensive recovery from IE.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".