Home > Journals > Panminerva Medica > Past Issues > Panminerva Medica 2021 June;63(2) > Panminerva Med 2021 June;63(2):160-9

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

REVIEW  CARDIOVASCULAR PREVENTION AND REHABILITATION: COST-EFFECTIVE AND UNDERUTILIZED TOOLS 

Panminerva Med 2021 June;63(2):160-9

DOI: 10.23736/S0031-0808.21.04267-1

Copyright © 2021 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Prognostic effects of cardiovascular rehabilitation: facts and myths

Elena EXPOSITO ORDÓÑEZ 1, Diego ROLDÁN CONESA 1, Tomás VICENTE VERA 1, 2

1 Cardiac Rehabilitation Unit, Reina Sofia de Murcia University Hospital, Murcia, Spain; 2 Catholic University of San Antonio de Murcia, Department of Cardiology, Reina Sofia de Murcia University Hospital, Murcia, Spain



Since CR was introduced, studies have been carried out to discover the effect of CRHPs on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and on heart-disease patients’ quality of life. The first meta-analyses showed improvement in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, although the studies were conducted in the coronary pre-reperfusion era, before the generalized use in secondary prevention of drugs such as statins, beta-blockers, or renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors, which have produced a decrease in cardiovascular mortality. In Europe, analyzing 25 studies with more than 200,000 patients. It concluded that, in spite of the great heterogeneity of the programs, CR clearly decreases mortality after ACS. Nevertheless, a strategy of CRHP standardization and evaluation is needed. In 2017, a study was carried out in our hospital to evaluate the effectiveness of multidisciplinary CRHP intervention on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, recurrence of cardiovascular events, the control of RFCV and lifestyle changes in patients after ACS. A total of 442 patients were included who had presented an acute cardiovascular event in the previous six months; 306 patients from the CR group and 136 others with standard cardiology follow-up were used as controls. 405 patients completed follow-up for a median of 60 months. Compared to the usual treatments in cardiology, the patients who underwent CRHPs presented fewer readmissions for cardiovascular reasons (17% vs. 43.38%, P<0.001), fewer major cardiovascular events (11.9% vs. 27.2%, P<0.001) and new revascularizations (9.3% vs. 21.32%, P=0.001), with lower cardiovascular mortality (0 vs. 2.2%, P=0.014). It also led to better control of the RFCV (66% vs. 19.85%, P<0.001) and favored lifestyle changes in these patients (91% vs. 61%, P<0.001). Therefore, in our setting, the performance of CRHPs was shown to be effective in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and in the secondary prevention of coronary patients.


KEY WORDS: Cardiac rehabilitation; Cost-benefit analysis; Prevention and control

top of page