Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32089005›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of preventive cardiology2020

Effectiveness of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation in coronary artery disease patients treated according to contemporary evidence based medicine: Update of the Cardiac Rehabilitation Outcome Study (CROS-II).

Annett Salzwedel, Katrin Jensen, Bernhard Rauch, Patrick Doherty, Maria-Inti Metzendorf, Matthes Hackbusch, Heinz Völler, Jean-Paul Schmid, Constantinos H Davos

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of preventive cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 116 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
116citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06396793 completednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Prevalence of Psychological Symptoms and Their Correlation With the Rehabilitative Outcome in Patients With Cardiac and Pulmonary Diseases Undergoing a Hospital Rehabilitation.

TypeobservationalSponsorIstituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri SpARan2023 to 2024Enrolled421ConditionsPsychological Distress, Anxiety, Depression, Cardiovascular DiseasesArmsno intervention because it is an observational study
NCT06919237 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Chronic Adaptations in Cardiovagal Modulation and Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease to a 12-week Heart Rate Variability-guided Training vs Traditional Aerobic Prescription Program: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorFaculdade de Motricidade HumanaRan2025 to 2028Enrolled48ConditionsCoronary Arterial Disease (CAD)ArmsHIIT Intervention, MICT Intervention, HRV-Guided Intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

116 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  8. Causal Model Building in the Context of Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

56 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Annett SalzwedelDepartment of Rehabilitation Research, University of Potsdam, Germany.
Katrin JensenInstitute of Medical Biometry and Informatics (IMBI), University of Heidelberg, Germany.
Bernhard RauchInstitut für Herzinfarktforschung Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Patrick DohertyDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, UK.
Maria-Inti MetzendorfCochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany.
Matthes HackbuschInstitute of Medical Biometry and Informatics (IMBI), University of Heidelberg, Germany.
Heinz VöllerDepartment of Rehabilitation Research, University of Potsdam, Germany.
Jean-Paul SchmidDepartment of Cardiology, Clinic Barmelweid, Switzerland.
Constantinos H DavosCardiovascular Research Laboratory, Academy of Athens, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite numerous studies and meta-analyses the prognostic effect of cardiac rehabilitation is still under debate. This update of the Cardiac Rehabilitation Outcome Study (CROS II) provides a contemporary and practice focused approach including only cardiac rehabilitation interventions based on published standards and core components to evaluate cardiac rehabilitation delivery and effectiveness in improving patient prognosis.

designA systematic review and meta-analysis.

methodsRandomised controlled trials and retrospective and prospective controlled cohort studies evaluating patients after acute coronary syndrome, coronary artery bypass grafting or mixed populations with coronary artery disease published until September 2018 were included.

resultsBased on CROS inclusion criteria out of 7096 abstracts six additional studies including 8671 patients were identified (two randomised controlled trials, two retrospective controlled cohort studies, two prospective controlled cohort studies). In total, 31 studies including 228,337 patients were available for this meta-analysis (three randomised controlled trials, nine prospective controlled cohort studies, 19 retrospective controlled cohort studies; 50,653 patients after acute coronary syndrome 14,583, after coronary artery bypass grafting 163,101, mixed coronary artery disease populations; follow-up periods ranging from 9 months to 14 years). Heterogeneity in design, cardiac rehabilitation delivery, biometrical assessment and potential confounders was considerable. Controlled cohort studies showed a significantly reduced total mortality (primary endpoint) after cardiac rehabilitation participation in patients after acute coronary syndrome (prospective controlled cohort studies: hazard ratio (HR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20-0.69; retrospective controlled cohort studies HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.76; prospective controlled cohort studies odds ratio 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.48), but the single randomised controlled trial fulfilling the CROS inclusion criteria showed neutral results. Cardiac rehabilitation participation was also associated with reduced total mortality in patients after coronary artery bypass grafting (retrospective controlled cohort studies HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.70, one single randomised controlled trial without fatal events), and in mixed coronary artery disease populations (retrospective controlled cohort studies HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36-0.77; two out of 10 controlled cohort studies with neutral results).

conclusionCROS II confirms the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation participation after acute coronary syndrome and after coronary artery bypass grafting in actual clinical practice by reducing total mortality under the conditions of current evidence-based coronary artery disease treatment. The data of CROS II, however, underscore the urgent need to define internationally accepted minimal standards for cardiac rehabilitation delivery as well as for scientific evaluation.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareQuality of LifeCardiac RehabilitationCoronary Artery DiseaseEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPrognosisacute coronary syndromeCardiac rehabilitationcardiac rehabilitation deliverycoronary artery diseasecoronary bypass graftingmortality

Identifiers

PMID32089005
PMCPMC7564293

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.