Effects of cardiac rehabilitation initiated in the early recovery period post cardiac arrest on aerobic endurance: a propensity-matched analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background/Introduction Cardiac arrest (CA) survivors face significant challenges related to functional capacity in the short-term period after their events. While cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a well-established intervention for various cardiac conditions, its effectiveness in the post-CA population remains understudied. Purpose This investigation aimed to evaluate the impact of CR on aerobic endurance in CA patients who participated in an early CR program. Methods In this retrospective analysis, 34 post-CA patients who completed CR (CR-CA) at a specialized rehabilitation center between December 2022 and June 2024were propensity-matched with 34 CR cardiac patients without CA history (CR-NOCA, N=28 males) based on age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). Aerobic endurance was assessed using the six-minute walk distance test (6MWD) in accordance to American Thoracic Society guidelines at CR initiation and completion. Changes in 6MWD were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Results By design, matched groups demonstrated comparable baseline characteristics (CR-CA, vs. CR-NOCA): age (65.4 vs 65.6 years) and BMI (25.9 ± 4.0 vs. 25.7 ± 3.9 kg/m²). Median interval between event and CR admission was 9.5 days (quartiles 7–15 days), median length of stay in CR was 20 days (quartiles 20–27 days). A significant main effect for time (F(1,66) = 178.77, p < 0.001, η²p = 0.730) was observed, with both groups showing substantial improvements in 6MWD (CR-CA: 425 to 554m vs. CR-NOCA: 416 to 547m, Figure 1). No significant group effect (p = 0.814) or group × time interaction (p = 0.886) was found, indicating similar patterns of improvement between groups. Conclusion Post-CA patients demonstrated significant improvements in 6MWD following CR that were comparable to matched controls without CA history. These findings support the implementation of CR as a safe and effective intervention for enhancing aerobic endurance in post-CA survivors, with benefits similar to those observed in traditional CR populations.Changes in 6-minute walk distance
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".