Intensive Versus Traditional Cardiac Rehabilitation: Mortality and Cardiovascular Outcomes in a 2016-2020 Retrospective Medicare Cohort.

backgroundTraditional cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves cardiovascular outcomes and reduces mortality, but less is known about the relative benefit of intensive CR (ICR) which incorporates greater lifestyle education through 72 sessions (versus 36 in CR). Our objective was to determine whether ICR is associated with a mortality and cardiovascular benefit compared with CR.

methodsRetrospective cohort study of Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiaries in a 100% sample, claims data set. Qualifying events were captured from May 1, 2016 to December 31, 2019 and ICR/CR utilization captured from May 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020. Among patients attending at least 1 day of either CR or ICR, Cox proportional hazards models using a 1 to 5 propensity score match were used to compare utilization and the association of ICR versus CR participation with (1) all-cause mortality and (2) cardiovascular-related hospitalizations or nonfatal cardiac events. Dose-response was assessed by the number of days attended.

resultsFrom 2016 to 2019, 1 277 358 unique patients met at least one qualifying indication for ICR/CR from 2016 to 2019. Of these, 262 579 (20.6%) and 4452 (0.4%) attended at least one session of CR or ICR, respectively (mean [SD] age, 73.2 [7.8] years; 32.3% female). In the matched sample, including 26 659 total patients (median, 2.4-year follow-up), ICR was associated with 12% lower all-cause mortality (multivariable adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78-0.99];

conclusionsICR is associated with lower mortality than traditional CR among Medicare beneficiaries but no difference in cardiovascular-related hospitalization or nonfatal cardiac events. Moreover, ICR and CR demonstrate a dose-response relationship for mortality. Additional studies are needed to confirm these observations and to better understand the mechanisms by which ICR may lead to a reduction in mortality.