ArticleBMJ open2018
Expanded cardiac rehabilitation in socially vulnerable patients with myocardial infarction: a 10-year follow-up study focusing on mortality and non-fatal events.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medication adherence, biological and lifestyle risk factors in patients with myocardial infarction: a ten-year follow-up on socially differentiated cardiac rehabilitation.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2019Trial
- Clinical effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation and barriers to completion in patients of low socioeconomic status in rural areas: A mixed-methods study.Clinical rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Article
- Is the Clinical Delivery of Cardiac Rehabilitation in an Australian Setting Associated with Changes in Physical Capacity and Cardiovascular Risk and Are Any Changes Maintained for 12 Months?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Cardiac rehabilitation via telerehabilitation in COVID-19 pandemic situation.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2021Review
- Article
- Enhancing participation in cardiac rehabilitation: Focus on underserved populations.Progress in cardiovascular diseasesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCardiac rehabilitation (CR) has been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk. A research project performed at a university hospital in Denmark offered an expanded CR intervention to socially vulnerable patients. One-year follow-up showed significant improvements concerning medicine compliance, lipid profile, blood pressure and body mass index when compared with socially vulnerable patients receiving standard CR. The aim of the study was to perform a long-term follow-up on the socially differentiated CR intervention and examine the impact of the intervention on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal recurrent events and major cardiac events (MACE) 10 years after.
designProspective cohort study.
settingThe cardiac ward at a university hospital in Denmark from 2000 to 2004.
participants379 patients aged <70 years admitted with first episode myocardial infarction (MI). The patients were defined as socially vulnerable or non-socially vulnerable according to their educational level and their social network. A complete follow-up was achieved.
interventionA socially differentiated CR intervention. The intervention consisted of standard CR and additionally a longer phase II course, more consultations, telephone follow-up and a better handover to phase III CR in the municipal sector, in general practice and in the patient association.
main outcome measuresAll-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal recurrent events and MACE.
resultsThere was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR: 1.29, 95% CI 0.58 to 2,89), cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.09), non-fatal recurrent events (OR:1.62, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.92) or MACE (OR: 1.31, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.42) measured at 10-year follow-up when comparing the expanded CR intervention to standard CR.
conclusionsDespite the significant results of the socially differentiated CR intervention at 1-year follow-up, no long-term effects were seen regarding the main outcome measures at 10-year follow-up. Future research should focus on why it is not possible to lower the mortality and morbidity significantly among socially vulnerable patients admitted with first episode MI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.