ArticleOpen heart2026
Physical fitness after myocardial infarction compared with clinical reference values: a SWEDEHEART registry study.
Article in Open heart, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe primary aim of this study was to describe physical fitness in a large real-world cohort of patients entering exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (EBCR) after first-time myocardial infarction (MI). The secondary aim was to compare the results with clinical reference values.
methodsThis registry-based cohort study used data from the Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART) post-MI registry between 2016 and 2019. Patients with first-time MI who underwent physiotherapist-led assessments of physical fitness at EBCR entry were included. Exercise capacity was evaluated by a symptom-limited cycle ergometer test and muscular endurance by a unilateral heel-rise test. Results were compared with age-stratified and sex-stratified clinical reference values. Reference values for exercise capacity were based on the Swedish Kalmar dataset, the national standard reference in Sweden since 2014, and reference values for heel-rise performance were based on a Swedish normative dataset of healthy adults.
resultsA total of 15 105 patients (mean age 62.5±9.1 years, 78.4% men) were included. Exercise capacity (Watt max from the exercise test) was higher in men than women across age groups, and muscular endurance declined with age, with a steeper age-related decline in women's heel rise performance. The mean exercise capacity of the study population corresponded to 64.7±27.4% of predicted values in men and 68.4±18.9% in women. Muscular endurance averaged 78.4%±51.0% of reference values in men and 61.7%±43.2% in women.
conclusionAt EBCR entry after a first-time MI, both exercise capacity and muscular endurance were substantially below age-specific and sex-specific reference values. These results underscore the importance of systematic baseline assessments and tailored rehabilitation interventions targeting both exercise capacity and muscular endurance.
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.