ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2024
A comparative analysis of open heart surgery and minimally invasive cardiac surgery in exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-analysis of scar formation and depression and anxiety symptoms in patients after cardiac surgery.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHistorically, the majority of patients admitted to inpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (EBCR) have undergone open heart surgery (OHS). However, with advances in minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS), these patient groups are also increasingly referred for inpatient EBCR. Herein, we aimed to compare the progress of these groups during rehabilitation.
methodsIn this prospective, nonrandomized study, 403 inpatient EBCR patients were recruited from December 2022 until September 2023 and stratified into two groups: OHS, and MICS. Participants completed a 3-4-week certified EBCR program. The primary endpoint was defined as a change in the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Moreover, a comprehensive panel of quality-of-life (QoL) assessments were performed at admission and discharge.
resultsAt baseline, patients with OHS were older (66 years [IQR 59 - 72]), more often male (83%), and underwent emergency/urgent procedures more often (20%) than patients with MICS. Furthermore, patients with MICS showed a better 6MWT at admission (426 meters [IQR 336 - 483]) compared to patients with OHS (381 meters [IQR 299 - 453]). While all patients were able to increase the distance in the 6MWT, regression analyses in fully adjusted models showed no difference in improvements between the two groups (β -5, 95% CI, -26 - 14, p = 0.58). Moreover, during EBCR, we observed significant improvements in all QoL measures in all groups.
conclusionsIn this study, improvements in fitness, as assessed by the 6WMT were observed in all groups. Furthermore, multiple QoL measures improved equally across all groups. These encouraging results emphasize the importance of EBCR.
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.