SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Impact of cardiac rehabilitation on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease following percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Cardiac Rehabilitation-Current Paradigms and Challenges Across the Cardiovascular Continuum.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs of 2025, cardiovascular disease (CVD) still remains a major threat to human life. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is still considered life-threatening and therefore prompt diagnosis and immediate interventions are mandatory. Nowadays, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has shown to improve patients' outcomes following cardiac intervention. In this analysis, we aimed to show the impact of CR on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
methodsStudies which compared the cardiovascular outcomes in participants who were assigned to a CR group versus a control group following PCI were searched from electronic data sources. The cardiovascular outcomes were the main endpoints in this analysis. Statistical analysis was carried out by the Revman software. Risks ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to represent and describe the results following analysis.
resultsFifteen studies with a total number of 115,177 participants were included (38,433 participants were assigned to the CR group and 76,744 participants were assigned to a control group). Our results showed major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and all-cause mortality to be significantly lower in the CR group with (RR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.81 - 1.00; P = 0.05) and (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.57 - 0.84; P = 0.0002) respectively. In addition, the risks of heart failure (RR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.49 - 0.76; P = 0.0001), stable and unstable angina (RR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.18 - 0.49; P = 0.00001) and arrhythmia (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.61 - 0.81; P = 0.00001) were also significantly lower in the CR group. However, re-stenosis, cardiac death, and recurrent myocardial infarction were similarly manifested.
conclusionOur analysis demonstrated that CR post-PCI could have a positive impact on the adverse cardiovascular outcomes whereby MACEs, all-cause mortality and heart failure were significantly decreased. However, due to the several major limitations of this analysis, future larger trials should confirm our hypothesis.
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.