Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Rehabilitación cardíaca para pacientes con cardiopatía: una revisión global de las revisiones sistemáticas Cochrane

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Referencias de las revisiones incluidas

Brown 2011

Brown JP, Clark AM, Dalal H, Welch K, Taylor RS. Patient education in the management of coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 12. Art. No: CD008895. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008895.pub2]

Heran 2011

Heran BS, Chen JM, Ebrahim S, Moxham T, Oldridge N, Rees K, et al. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 7. Art. No: CD001800. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001800.pub2]

Karmali 2014

Karmali K, Davies P, Taylor F, Beswick A, Martin N, Ebrahim S. Promoting patient uptake and adherence in cardiac rehabilitation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 6. Art. No: CD007131. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007131.pub3]

Taylor 2014a

Taylor RS, Dalal H, Jolly K, Zawada A. Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue in press. Art. No: CD007130. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007130.pub2]

Taylor 2014b

Taylor RS, Sager VA, Davies EJ, Briscoe S, Coats AJ, Dalal H, et al. Exercise-based rehabilitation for heart failure. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. Art. No: CD003331. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003331.pub4]

Whalley 2011

Whalley B, Rees K, Davies P, Bennett P, Ebrahim S, Liu Z, et al. Psychological interventions for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 8. Art. No: CD002902. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002902.pub3]

Referencias de las revisiones excluidas

Hulzebos 2012

Hulzebos EHJ, Smit Y, Helders PPJM, van Meeteren NLU. Preoperative physical therapy for elective cardiac surgery patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 11. Art. No: CD010118. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010118.pub2]

Allender 2008

Allender S, Scarborough P, O'Flaherty M, Capewell S. Patterns of coronary heart disease mortality over the 20th century in England and Wales: possible plateaus in the rate of decline. BMC Public Health 2008;8:148.

BACPR 2012

British Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. The BACPR standards and core components for cardiovascular disease prevention and rehabilitation, 2nd edition, 2012. www.bacpr.com/resources/46C_BACPR_Standards_and_Core_Components_2012.pdf (accessed 7 December 2014).

Balady 2011

Balady GJ, Ades PA, Bittner VA, Franklin BA, Gordon NF, Thomas RJ, et al. Referral, enrolment, and delivery of cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention programs at clinical centers and beyond: a presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2011;124(25):2951-60.

Balshem 2011

Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64:401-6.

Becker 2011

Becker LA, Oxman AD. Chapter 22: overviews of reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.

Belardinelli 1998

Belardinelli R, Georgiou D, Ginzton L, Cianci G, Purcaro A. Effects of moderate exercise training on thallium uptake and contractile response to low-dose dobutamine of dysfunctional myocardium in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Circulation 1998;97:553-61.

Bethell 2008

Bethell H, Lewin R, Evans J, Turner S, Allender S, Petersen S. Outpatient cardiac rehabilitation attendance in England: variability by region and clinical characteristics. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention 2008;28(6):386-91.

Black 1998

Black JL, Allison TG, Williams DE, Rummans TA, Gau GT. Effect of intervention for psychological distress on rehospitalization rates in cardiac rehabilitation patients. Psychosomatics 1998;39:134-43.

Brown 2003

Brown A, Taylor R, Noorani H, Stone JA, Skidmore B. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation programs for coronary artery disease: a systematic clinical and economic review. Canadian Coordinating office for Health Technology Assessment2003;Technology report 34.

Bucher 1997

Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1997;50:683-91.

Bushman 1984

Bushman BJ. Vote-counting procedures in meta-analysis. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors(s). The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1984:193-213.

Cipriani 2013

Cipriani A, Higgins JP, Geddes JR, Salanti G. Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013;159:130-7.

Clark 2005

Clark AM, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, McAlister FA. Meta-analysis: secondary prevention programs for patients with coronary artery disease. Annals of Internal Medicine 2005;143:659-72.

Clark 2013

Clark AM. What are the components of complex interventions in healthcare? Theorizing approaches to parts, powers and the whole intervention. Social Science & Medicine 2013;93:185-93.

Clausen 1976

Clausen JP. Circulatory adjustments to dynamic exercise and effect of physical training in normal subjects and in patients with coronary artery disease. Progress in Cardiovascular Disease 1976;18:459-95.

Cowie 2000

Cowie MR, Wood DA, Coats AJ, Thompson SG, Suresh V, Poole-Wilson PA, et al. Survival of patients with a new diagnosis of heart failure: a population based study. Heart 2000;83:505-10.

Craig 2008

Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008;337:a1655.

Dalal 2007

Dalal HM, Evans PH, Campbell JL, Taylor RS, Watt A, Read KL, et al. Home-based versus hospital-based rehabilitation after myocardial infarction: a randomized trial with preference arms - Cornwall Heart Attack Rehabilitation Management Study (CHARMS). International Journal of Cardiology 2007;119:202-11.

Dalal 2012

Dalal HM, Wingham J, Palmer J, Taylor R, Petre C, Lewin R, et al. Why do so few patients with heart failure participate in cardiac rehabilitation? A cross-sectional survey from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. BMJ Open 2012;2:e000787.

Daly 2002

Daly J, Sindone AP, Thompson DR, Hancock K, Chang E, Davidson P. Barriers to participation in and adherence to cardiac rehabilitation programs: a critical literature review. Progress in Cardiovascular Nursing 2002;17:8-17.

Devi 2011

Devi R, Igbinedion E, Powell J, Singh S, Rees K. Internet based interventions for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 10. Art. No: CD009386. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009386]

Dickstein 2008

Dickstein K, Cohen-Solal A, Filippatos G, McMurray JJ, Ponikowski P, Poole-Wilson PA, et al. ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008: the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association of the ESC (HFA) and endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). European Journal of Heart Failure 2008;10:933-89.

Duncan 2003

Duncan K, Pozehl B. Effects of an exercise adherence intervention on outcomes in patients with heart failure. Rehabilitation Nursing 2003;28:117-22.

Esposito 2008

Esposito D, Brown R, Chen A, Schore J, Shapiro R. Impacts of a disease management program for dually eligible beneficiaries. Health Care Financing Review 2008;30:27-45.

Euler 2013

Euler U, Wegewitz UE, Schmitt J, Adams J, van Dijk JL, Seidler A. Interventions to support return-to-work for patients with coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 9. Art. No: CD010748. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010748]

Flynn 2009

Flynn KE, Pina IL, Whellan DJ, Lin L, Blumenthal JA, Ellis SJ, et al. Effects of exercise training on health status in patients with chronic heart failure: HF-ACTION randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;301:1451-9.

Gardner 2010

Gardner B, Whittington C, McAteer J, Eccles MP, Michie S. Using theory to synthesise evidence from behaviour change interventions: the example of audit and feedback. Social Science & Medicine 2010;70:1618-25.

Gaziano 2010

Gaziano TA, Bitton A, Anand S, Abrahams-Gessel S, Murphy A. Growing epidemic of coronary heart disease in low- and middle-income countries. Current Problems in Cardiology 2010;35:72-115.

Georgiou 2001

Georgiou D, Chen Y, Appadoo S, Belardinelli R, Greene R, Parides MK, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of long-term moderate exercise training in chronic heart failure. American Journal of Cardiology 2001;87:984-8.

Go 2014

Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, Benjamin EJ, Berry JD, Blaha MJ, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics - 2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2014;129:e28-e292.

GRADEpro 2008 [Computer program]

GRADE Working GroupGRADEprofiler. Version 3.2 for Windows. Brozek J, Oxman A, Schünemann H. GRADE Working Group, 2008.

Gravely‐Witte 2007

Gravely-Witte S, De Gucht V, Heiser W, Grace SL, Van Elderen T. The impact of angina and cardiac history on health-related quality of life and depression in coronary heart disease patients. Chronic Illness 2007;3:66-76.

Hambrecht 1998

Hambrecht R, Fiehn E, Weigl C, Gielen S, Hamann C, Kaiser R, et al. Regular physical exercise corrects endothelial dysfunction and improves exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure. Circulation1998;98(24):2709-15.

Hambrecht 2000

Hambrecht R, Gielen S, Linke A, Fiehn E, Yu J, Walther C, et al. Effects of exercise training on left ventricular function and peripheral resistance in patients with chronic heart failure: a randomized trial. JAMA 2000;283:3095-101.

Haykowsky 2007

Haykowsky MJ, Liang Y, Pechter D, Jones LW, McAlister FA, Clark AM. A meta-analysis of the effect of exercise training on left ventricular remodeling in heart failure patients: the benefit depends on the type of training performed. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2007;49:2329-36.

Higgins 2011

Higgins JPT. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.

Hobbs 2007

Hobbs FD, Roalfe AK, Davis RC, Davies MK, Hare R, Midlands Research Practices Consortium. Prognosis of all-cause heart failure and borderline left ventricular systolic dysfunction: 5 year mortality follow-up of the Echocardiographic Heart of England Screening Study (ECHOES). European Heart Journal 2007;28:1128-34.

Hoffmann 2014

Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687.

Hwang 2009

Hwang R, Marwick T. Efficacy of home-based exercise programmes for people with chronic heart failure: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation 2009;16:527-35.

Jolliffe 2001

Jolliffe JA, Rees K, Taylor RS, Thompson D, Oldridge N, Ebrahim S. Exercise-based rehabilitation for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 1. Art. No: CD001800. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001800]

Jolly 1998

Jolly K, Bradley F, Sharp S, Smith H, Mant D. Follow-up care in general practice of patients with myocardial infarction or angina pectoris: initial results of the SHIP trial. Southampton Heart Integrated Care Project. Family Practice 1998;15:548-55.

Jolly 2007

Jolly K, Taylor R, Lip GY, Greenfield S, Raftery J, Mant J, et al. The Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation Study (BRUM). Home-based compared with hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation in a multi-ethnic population: cost-effectiveness and patient adherence. Health Technology Assessment 2007;11:1-118.

Koongstvedt 2001

Koongstvedt PR. The Managed Health Care Handbook. 4th edition. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2001.

Kostis 1997

Kostis JB, Davis BR, Cutler J, Grimm RH Jr, Berge KG, Cohen JD, et al. Prevention of heart failure by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. SHEP Cooperative Research Group. JAMA 1997;278:212-6.

Kung 2010

Kung J, Chiappelli F, Cajulis OO, Avezova R, Kossan G, Chew L, et al. From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance. Open Dentistry Journal 2010;4:84-91.

Lawler 2011

Lawler PR, Filion KB, Eisenberg MJ. Efficacy of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation post-myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. American Heart Journal 2011;162:571-84.

Lisspers 1999

Lisspers J, Sundin O, Hofman-Bang C, Nordlander R, Nygren A, Ryden L, et al. Behavioral effects of a comprehensive, multifactorial program for lifestyle change after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: a prospective, randomized controlled study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 1999;46:143-54.

Mathers 2008

Mathers C, Fat D, Boerma JT. The global burden of disease: 2004 update. World Health Organization, 2008.

McKelvie 2013

McKelvie R S, Moe G W, Ezekowitz J A, Heckman G A, Costigan J, Ducharme A, et al. The 2012 Canadian Cardiovascular Society heart failure management guidelines update: focus on acute and chronic heart failure. Can J Cardiol 2013;29:168-81.

McMurray 2005

McMurray JJ, Pfeffer MA. Heart failure. Lancet 2005;365:1877-89.

McMurray 2012

McMurray John JV, Adamopoulos Stamatis, Anker Stefan D, Auricchio Angelo, Böhm Michael, Dickstein Kenneth, et al. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012 The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. European heart journal 2012;33:1787-847.

Mechta‐Nielsen 2014

Mechta-Nielsen. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adult patients with ICD [personal communication]. Email to: L Anderson 9 May 2014.

Mehta 2009

Mehta PA, Dubrey SW, McIntyre HF, Walker DM, Hardman SM, Sutton GC, et al. Improving survival in the 6 months after diagnosis of heart failure in the past decade: population-based data from the UK. Heart 2009;95:1851-6.

Miller 1984

Miller NH, Haskell WL, Berra K, DeBusk RF. Home versus group exercise training for increasing functional capacity after myocardial infarction. Circulation 1984;70:645-9.

Mills 2013

Mills EJ, Thorlund K, Ioannidis JP. Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2013;346:f2914.

Moore 2003

Moore SM, Dolansky MA, Ruland CM, Pashkow FJ, Blackburn GG. Predictors of women's exercise maintenance after cardiac rehabilitation. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation 2003;23:40-9.

NICE 2013

NICE. Clinical guideline 172. MI – secondary prevention. Secondary prevention in primary and secondary care for patients following a myocardial infarction. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg1722013.

NICE 2013b

NICE. Commissioning guides 40. Cardiac rehabilitation services. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cmg402013.

O'Connor 1989

O'Connor GT, Buring JE, Yusuf S, Goldhaber SZ, Olmstead EM, Paffenbarger RS Jr, et al. An overview of randomized trials of rehabilitation with exercise after myocardial infarction. Circulation 1989;80:234-44.

Oldridge 1988

Oldridge NB, Guyatt GH, Fischer ME, Rimm AA. Cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction. Combined experience of randomized clinical trials. JAMA 1988;260:945-50.

Oldridge 2012

Oldridge N. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with coronary heart disease: meta-analysis outcomes revisited. Future of Cardiology 2012;8:729-51.

Perk 2012

Perk J, De Backer G, Gohlke H, Graham I, Reiner Z, Verschuren M, et al. European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012). The Fifth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts). European Heart Journal2012;33(13):1635-701.

Petticrew 2013

Petticrew M, Anderson L, Elder R, Grimshaw J, Hopkins D, Hahn R, et al. Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2013;66:1209-14.

Piepoli 2004

Piepoli MF, Davos C, Francis DP, Coats AJ, ExTra Match Collaborative. Exercise training meta-analysis of trials in patients with chronic heart failure (ExTraMATCH). BMJ 2004;328:189.

PRECOR 1991

PRECOR, Leizoroviez A, Saint-Pierre A, Vasselon C, Boissel JP. Comparison of a rehabilitation programme, a counselling programme and usual care after an acute myocardial infarction: results of a long-term randomized trial. European Heart Journal 1991;12:612-6.

Racca 2010

Racca V, Spezzaferri R, Modica M, Mazzini P, Jonsdottir J, De Maria R, et al. Functioning and disability in ischaemic heart disease. Disability and Rehabilitation 2010;32 Suppl 1:S42-9.

RevMan 2014 [Computer program]

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane CollaborationReview Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

Risom 2014

Risom SS, Zwisler A-D, Johansen PP, Sibilitz KL, Lindschou J, Taylor RS, et al. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with atrial fibrillation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 7. Art. No: CD011197. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011197]

Shea 2009

Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009;62:1013-20.

Sibilitz 2013

Sibilitz KL, Berg SK, Tang LH, Risom SS, Gluud C, Lindschou J, et al. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults after heart valve surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. Art. No: CD010876. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010876]

Stern 1983

Stern MJ, Gorman PA, Kaslow L. The group counselling v exercise therapy study. A controlled intervention with subjects following myocardial infarction. Archives of Internal Medicine 1983;143:1719-25.

Task Force Members 2013

Task Force Members, Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Andreotti F, Arden C, Budaj A, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. European Heart Journal2013;34(38):2949-3003.

Taylor 2004

Taylor RS, Brown A, Ebrahim S, Jolliffe J, Noorani H, Rees K, et al. Exercise-based rehabilitation for patients with coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. American Journal of Medicine 2004;116:682-92.

Taylor 2006

Taylor RS, Unal B, Critchley JA, Capewell S. Mortality reductions in patients receiving exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation: how much can be attributed to cardiovascular risk factor improvements? European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation 2006;13:369-74.

Taylor 2012

Taylor RS, Cochrane Review Authors. The RAMIT trial: its results in the context of 2012 Cochrane review. Heart 2012;98:672-3.

Tierney 2011

Tierney S, Mamas M, Skelton D, Woods S, Rutter MK, Gibson M, et al. What can we learn from patients with heart failure about exercise adherence? A systematic review of qualitative papers. Health Psychology 2011;30:401-10.

Weir 2012

Weir MC, Grimshaw, JM, Mayhew A, Fergusson D. Decisions about lumping vs. splitting of the scope of systematic reviews of complex interventions are not well justified: a case study in systematic reviews of health care professional reminders. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2012;65:756-63.

West 2012

West RR, Jones DA, Henderson AH. Rehabilitation After Myocardial Infarction Trial (RAMIT): multi-centre randomised controlled trial of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation in patients following acute myocardial infarction. Heart 2012;98:637-44.

WHO 2014

World Health Organization (WHO). Global health observatory data repository. apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main (accessed 7 December 2014).

Yancy 2013

Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE, Drazner MH, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2013;62:e147-239.

Study flow diagram.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Table 1. Summary of included Cochrane review characteristics

Review short title

(reference)

Exercise for CHD

(Heran 2011)

Exercise for HF

(Taylor 2014b)

Psychological for CHD

(Whalley 2011)

Education for CHD

(Brown 2011)

Home vs. centre

(Taylor 2014a)

Uptake and adherence

(Karmali 2014)

Main objective

To determine the effectiveness of exercise‐based CR (exercise training alone or in combination with psychosocial or educational interventions) on mortality, morbidity and HRQoL of people with CHD

To determine the effectiveness of exercise‐based interventions compared with usual medical care by focusing on mortality, hospital admission rate, morbidity and HRQoL in people with HF

To determine the independent effects of psychological interventions in people with CHD

To assess the effects of patient education on mortality, morbidity, HRQoL and healthcare costs in people with CHD

To determine the effectiveness of home‐based CR programmes compared with supervised centre‐based CR on mortality and morbidity, HRQoL and modifiable cardiac risk factors in people with CHD

To determine the harms and benefits of interventions to increase patient uptake of, and adherence to, CR

Search time frame

November 2000 to December 2009

2008 to March 2013

2001 to January 2009

1990 to August 2010

2008 to November 2012

2008 to January 2013

Study design

RCTs (follow‐up ≥ 6 months)

RCTs (follow‐up ≥ 6 months)

RCTs (no minimum follow‐up)

RCTs (follow‐up ≥ 6 months)

RCTs (no minimum follow‐up)

RCTs (no minimum follow‐up)

Population

Inclusion

Post‐MI

Post revascularisation

CHD defined by angiography

Exclusion

Heart valve surgery

HF

Heart transplantation

CRT or ICD implant

Inclusion

HF

Exclusion

Previous CR

Inclusion

Post‐MI

Post revascularisation

Angina

CHD defined by angiography

Exclusion

None

Inclusion

Post‐MI

Post revascularisation

Angina

CHD defined by angiography

Inclusion

Post‐MI

Post revascularisation

Angina

HF

Exclusion

Heart transplantation

CRT or CD implant

Previous CR

Inclusion

Post‐MI

Post revascularisation

Angina

HF

CHD

Exclusion

Heart transplantation

CRT or ICD implant

Intervention

Exercise training with or without the addition of psychosocial or educational interventions (or both)

Exercise training with or without the addition of psychosocial or educational interventions (or both)

Psychological interventions delivered by healthcare workers with specific training in psychological techniques

Patient education interventions involving direct contact with a health professional and including structured knowledge transfer about CHD

CR programmes delivered in a home‐based setting

CR plus any intervention with the specific aim of increasing patient uptake of, or adherence to, CR or any of its component parts

Comparator

No exercise training control that could include psychological, educational interventions, standard medical care or a combination

No exercise training control that could include psychological, educational interventions, standard medical care or a combination

No psychological intervention control that could include exercise interventions or standard medical care

No education intervention control that could include exercise interventions or standard medical care

CR programmes delivered in a centre‐based setting

CR programmes without the intervention

Outcomes

  • Mortality (total, CV, non‐CV)

  • MI (total, fatal, non‐fatal)

  • Revascularisations (total, CABG, PTCA, re‐stenting)

  • Hospitalisations (total, CV, other)

  • HRQoL

  • Economic (costs and cost‐effectiveness)

  • Mortality (total, HF and sudden death)

  • Hospitalisation (total, HF)

  • HRQoL

  • Economic (costs and cost‐effectiveness)

  • Mortality (total and CV)

  • Morbidity (non‐fatal MI)

  • Revascularisation (CABG and PTCA)

  • Psychological well‐being anxiety, depression, stress and Type A

  • Behaviour/hostility

  • HRQoL

  • Mortality (total, CV and non‐CV)

  • Total CV events

  • MI (fatal or non‐fatal, or both)

  • Other fatal or non‐fatal (or both) CV events

  • Revascularisations (CABG, PTCA with or without stenting)

  • Hospitalisations (cardiac‐related)

  • HRQoL

  • Withdrawals/drop‐outs

  • Economic (healthcare costs and cost‐effectiveness)

  • Mortality (total and CV)

  • Morbidity (reinfarction, revascularisation, cardiac‐associated hospitalisation)

  • Exercise capacity

  • Risk factors (smoking behaviour, blood lipid levels, blood pressure)

  • HRQoL

  • Adverse events (withdrawal from the exercise programme)

  • Adherence to rehabilitation

  • Economic (health service use, costs and cost‐effectiveness)

Uptake of, or adherence to, CR (primary)

  • Mortality (total)

  • Morbidity

  • Risk factors (smoking behaviour, blood lipid levels, blood pressure)

  • HRQoL

  • Economic (healthcare costs and cost‐effectiveness)

  • Any beneficial or adverse events

Funding source

NIHR, UK Cochrane Collaboration Programme Grant, UK

None specified

Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, UK

Health Services Research Focus, University of Wales College of Medicine, UK

British Heart Foundation, UK

ESCR, UK

NIHR, UK Cochrane Collaboration Heart Programme Grant, UK

NIHR, UK Cochrane Collaboration Programme Grant, UK

NIHR Cochrane Heart Programme grant, UK

Transparency of the National Health System Drug Reimbursement Decisions, Poland, EU

NIHR programme grant, UK

Authors' declarations of interest

Authors were authors of the original Cochrane review. RST was a co‐investigator on a number of CR RCTs

None declared

None declared

RST was a co‐author of the original Cochrane review and was a co‐investigator on a number of CR RCTs

None declared

CABG: coronary artery bypass graft; CAD: coronary artery disease; CHD: coronary heart disease; CR: cardiac rehabilitation; CRT: cardiac resynchronisation therapy; CV: cardiovascular; ESCR: Economic and Social Research Council; HF: heart failure; HRQoL: health‐related quality of life; ICD: implantable cardioverter defibrillator; MI: myocardial infarction; NIHR: National Institute of Health Research; PTCA: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; RCT: randomised controlled trial.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Summary of included Cochrane review characteristics
Table 2. Summary of characteristics of included RCTs

Review short title

(reference)

Exercise for CHD

(Heran 2011)

Exercise for HF

(Taylor 2014b)

Psychological for CHD

(Whalley 2011)

Education for CHD

(Brown 2011)

Home vs. centre

(Taylor 2014a)

Uptake and adherence

(Karmali 2014)

RCTs (participants)

Number

47 RCTs

(10,794)

33 RCTs

(4740)

24 RCTs

(9296)

13 RCTs

(68,556)

17 RCTs

(2172)

18 RCTs

(2505)

Nature of intervention*

Exercise only

17

21

0

0

6

Interventions aimed at increasing patient uptake of CR (10 RCTs)

Interventions designed to increase adherence to exercise (7 RCTs) or supervised CR (1 RCT)

Psychological only

0

0

14

0

0

Education only

0

0

0

13

0

> 1 intervention

29*

12

10 (psychological and education)

0

11

Sample size

Median (range)

142

(28 to 2304)

54

(19 to 2331)

133

(44 to 2481)

288

(87 to 46,606)

104

(20 to 525)

110

(16 to 597)

Intervention duration [months]

Median (range) months

3 (1 to 30)

6 (1 to 120)

NR

6 (1 to 30)

3 (1.5 to 6)

NR

Publication year (number of RCTs)

1970‐1979

2

0

2

0

0

0

1990‐1999

11

0

4

0

1

2

1990‐1999

20

5

8

4

2

3

2000‐2009

14

20

10

9

11

8

2010+

0

8

0

0

3

5

% male

Median (range)

88 (0 to 100)

80 (36 to 100)

84 (0 to 100)

60 (0 to 100)

80 (60 to 100)

84 (0 to 100)

% white

Median (range)

NR

85 (60 to 100) from 8 RCTs

NR

86 (55 to 97) from 6 RCTs

80 from 1 RCT

79 (43 to 95) from 6 RCTs

Age (years)

Median (range)

55 (49 to 70)

60 (51 to 81)

57 (51 to 62)

62 (51 to 73)

60 (52 to 69)

62 (51 to 77)

Indication (number of RCTs)

MI only

28

0

10

2

4

4

Angina only

1

0

1

1

0

0

Revascularisation only

1

0

4

2

4

0

MI or revascularisation (or both)

4

0

4

1

5

3

MI or angina

4

0

2

0

0

3

Mixed CHD

9

0

2

4

0

7

HF

0

33

0

3 CHD or HF

3

1

Arrhythmia

0

0

1

0

1

0

Study location (number of RCTs (%))

Europe

20 (43)

20 (64)

11 (46)

7 (54)

10 (58)

6 (33)

North America

3 (6)

11 (30)

11 (46)

6 (46)

5 (29)

11 (61)

Asia/Australia

7 (15)

1 (3)

2 (8)

0

1 (6)

1 (6)

Other

1 (3)

0

0

1 (6)

0

NR

17 (36)

0

0

0

0

0

Single centre

Number of RCTs (%)

23 (49)

30 (91)

8 (33)

4 (31)

15 (88)

10/16 (63)**

Follow‐up duration [months]

Median (range)

24 (6 to 120)

6 (6 to 120)

NR

18 (6 to 60)

6 (2 to 72)

3 (1.5 to 12)

CHD: coronary heart disease; HF: heart failure; MI: myocardial infarction; NR: not reported; RCT: randomised controlled trial.

* 1 RCT randomly assigned to exercise‐only or comprehensive intervention.

** 2 studies were unavailable to us as they were unpublished degree dissertations.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Summary of characteristics of included RCTs
Table 3. R‐AMSTAR assessment of included systematic reviews

Review short title

(reference)

Exercise for CHD

(Heran 2011)

Exercise for HF

(Taylor 2014b)

Psychological for CHD

(Whalley 2011)

Education for CHD

(Brown 2011)

Home vs. centre

(Taylor 2014a)

Uptake and adherence

(Karmali 2014)

1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?

(A) 'a priori' design

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(B) Statement of inclusion criteria

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(C) PICO/PIPO research question (population, intervention, comparison, prediction, outcome)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Score

4

4

4

4

4

4

2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?

(A) There should be at least 2 independent data extractors as stated or implied

Yes

*Yes

*Yes

*Yes

*Yes

Yes

(B) Statement of recognition or awareness of consensus procedure for disagreements

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(C) Disagreements among extractors resolved properly as stated or implied

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Score

4

4

4

4

4

Yes

3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?

(A) At least 2 electronic sources should be searched

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(B) The report must include years and databases used (e.g. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(C) Key words or MESH terms (or both) must be stated AND where feasible the search strategy outline should be provided such that one can trace the filtering process of the included articles

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(D) In addition to the electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE), all searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialised registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

(E) Journals were "hand‐searched" or "manual searched" (i.e. identifying highly relevant journals and conducting a manual, page‐by‐page search of their entire contents looking for potentially eligible studies)

No

No

No

No

No

No

Score

3

4

4

4

4

3

4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?

(A) The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type

*No

*No

No

*No

Yes

*No

(B) The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language, etc.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(C) "Non‐English papers were translated" or readers sufficiently trained in foreign language

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

(D) No language restriction or recognition of non‐English articles

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Score

4

3

4

4

4

3

5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?

(A) Table/list/figure of included studies, a reference list does not suffice

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(B) Table/list/figure of excluded studies, either in the article or in a supplemental source (i.e. online). (Excluded studies refers to those studies seriously considered on the basis of title and/or abstract, but rejected after reading the body of the text)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(C) Author satisfactorily/sufficiently stated the reason for exclusion of the seriously considered studies

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(D) Reader was able to retrace the included and the excluded studies anywhere in the article bibliography, reference or supplemental source

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Score

4

4

4

4

4

4

6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?

(A) In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions AND outcomes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(B) Provide the ranges of relevant characteristics in the studies analysed (e.g. age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity or other diseases should be reported)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(C) The information provided appears to be complete and accurate (i.e. there was a tolerable range of subjectivity here. Is the reader left wondering? If so, state the needed information and the reasoning)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Score

4

4

4

4

4

4

7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?

(A) 'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g. for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(B) The scientific quality of the included studies appeared to be meaningful

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(C) Discussion/recognition/awareness of level of evidence

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(D) Quality of evidence should be rated/ranked based on characterised instruments. (Characterised instrument is a created instrument that ranks the level of evidence, e.g. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation))

No

No

No

No

No

No

Score

3

3

3

3

3

3

8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?

(A) The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(B) The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality were explicitly stated in formulating recommendations

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

(C) To have conclusions integrated/drives towards a clinical consensus statement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(D) This clinical consensus statement drives towards revision or confirmation of clinical practice guidelines

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Score

2

2

2

3

2

3

9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?

(A) Statement of criteria that were used to decide that the studies analysed were similar enough to be pooled?

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

(B) For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e. Chi2 test for homogeneity, I2 statistic)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

NA

(C) Is there a recognition of heterogeneity or lack of thereof

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(D) If heterogeneity exists a "random‐effects model" should be used or the rationale (i.e. clinical appropriateness) of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e. is it sensible to combine?), or stated explicitly (or both)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

NA

(E) If homogeneity exists, author should state a rationale or a statistical test

Yes

Yes

NA

NA

Yes

NA

Score

4

4

3

4

4

2

10. Was the likelihood of publication bias (a.k.a. "file drawer" effect) assessed?

(A) Recognition of publication bias or file‐drawer effect

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(B) An assessment of publication bias should include graphical aids (e.g. funnel plot, other available tests)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

(C) Statistical tests (e.g. Egger regression test)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Score

4

4

4

4

4

2

11. Was the conflict of interest stated?

(A) Statement of sources of support

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(B) No conflict of interest. This is subjective and may require some deduction or searching

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(C) An awareness/statement of support or conflict of interest in the primary inclusion studies

No

No

No

No

No

No

Score

3

3

3

3

3

3

Total score (n/44)

39

39

39

41

40

35

CHD: coronary heart disease; HF: heart failure.

* Studies were screened independently by 2 review authors. Data were extracted by 1 review author and checked by a second review author.

** While the authors did not explicitly state that they searched for reports regardless of publication type, it was clear from the included studies or text (or both) that a search of grey literature was conducted.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 3. R‐AMSTAR assessment of included systematic reviews
Table 4. Risk of bias of included randomised controlled trials

Review short title

(reference)

Exercise for CHD

(Heran 2011)

Exercise for HF

(Taylor 2014b)

Psychological for CHD

(Whalley 2011)

Education for CHD

(Brown 2011)

Home vs. centre

(Taylor 2014a)

Uptake and adherence

(Karmali 2014)

Total

Number of RCTs with low risk of bias (%)

Random sequence generation

8 (17)

10 (30)

7 (29)

9 (69)

4 (24)

9 (50)

47 (31)

Allocation concealment

7 (15)

6 (18)

7 (29)

7 (54)

7 (41)

8 (44)

41 (27)

Groups balanced at baseline

a27 (57)

32 (97)

a10 (42)

12 (92)

14 (82)

ab9 (56)

103 (68)

Outcome blinding

4 (9)

11 (33)

5 (21)

4 (31)

7 (41)

5 (28)

36 (24)

Selective reporting

0 (0)

31 (94)

16 (67)

12 (92)

16 (94)

15 (83)

90 (59)

Loss to follow‐up < 20%

33 (70)

29 (88)

13 (54)

10 (77)

11 (65)

4 (22)

99 (65)

Intention‐to‐treat analysis

a19 (40)

29 (88)

22 (92)

11 (85)

14 (82)

ab7 (44)

101 (66)

Groups received same treatment apart from intervention*

a21 (45)

21 (64)

a16 (67)

11 (85)

15 (88)

ab15 (94)

100 (66)

CHD: coronary heart disease; HF: heart failure; RCT: randomised controlled trial.

a Risk of bias was not reported within the review, but was assessed by the authors of this overview.

b Denominator = 16 as 2 studies were unavailable to us as they were unpublished degree dissertations.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 4. Risk of bias of included randomised controlled trials
Table 5. Exercise‐based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease

Exercise‐based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease

Patient or population: people with CHD
Settings:
Intervention: exercise‐based CR

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Exercise‐based CR

Total mortality
Follow‐up: 6‐12 months

Study population

RR 0.82
(0.67 to 1.01)

6000
(19 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

65 per 1000

53 per 1000
(43 to 65)

Moderate

Total mortality
Follow‐up: 12‐120 months

Study population

RR 0.87
(0.75 to 0.99)

5790
(16 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

126 per 1000

109 per 1000
(94 to 125)

Moderate

Cardiovascular mortality
Follow‐up: 6‐12 months

Study population

RR 0.93
(0.71 to 1.21)

4130
(9 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

51 per 1000

48 per 1000
(36 to 62)

Moderate

Cardiovascular mortality
Follow‐up: 12‐120 months

Study population

RR 0.74
(0.63 to 0.87)

4757
(12 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

129 per 1000

96 per 1000
(81 to 112)

Moderate

Hospitalisations
Follow‐up: 6‐12 months

Study population

RR 0.69
(0.51 to 0.93)

463
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

324 per 1000

224 per 1000
(165 to 302)

Moderate

Hospitalisations
Follow‐up: 12‐48 months

Study population

RR 0.98
(0.87 to 1.11)

2009
(7 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,3

342 per 1000

335 per 1000
(297 to 379)

Moderate

MI
Follow‐up: 6‐12 months

Study population

RR 0.92
(0.7 to 1.22)

4216
(12 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2,4

45 per 1000

41 per 1000
(32 to 55)

Moderate

MI
Follow‐up: 12‐120 months

Study population

RR 0.97
(0.82 to 1.15)

5682
(16 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,4

89 per 1000

87 per 1000
(73 to 103)

Moderate

CABG
Follow‐up: 6‐12 months

Study population

RR 0.91
(0.67 to 1.24)

2312
(14 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

67 per 1000

61 per 1000
(45 to 83)

Moderate

CABG
Follow‐up: 12‐120 months

Study population

RR 0.93
(0.68 to 1.27)

2189
(9 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

69 per 1000

64 per 1000
(47 to 88)

Moderate

PTCA
Follow‐up: 6‐12 months

Study population

RR 1.02
(0.69 to 1.5)

1328
(7 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

69 per 1000

71 per 1000
(48 to 104)

Moderate

PTCA
Follow‐up: 12‐48 months

Study population

RR 0.89
(0.66 to 1.19)

1322
(6 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

124 per 1000

110 per 1000
(82 to 147)

Moderate

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CABG: coronary artery bypass graft; CHD: coronary heart disease; CI: confidence interval; CR: cardiac rehabilitation; MI: myocardial infarction; PTCA: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; RR: risk ratio.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were poorly described; bias likely.
2 The 95% CIs include both no effect and appreciable benefit or harm (i.e. RR < 0.75 or > 1.25).
3 Moderate heterogeneity (I2 > 50%).
4 Funnel plots or Egger test (or both) suggest evidence of asymmetry.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 5. Exercise‐based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease
Table 6. Exercise‐based cardiac rehabilitation for heart disease

Exercise‐based cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure

Patient or population: people with HF

Settings:
Intervention: exercise‐based CR

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Exercise‐based CR

Total mortality
Follow‐up: 6‐12 months

Study population

RR 0.93
(0.69 to 1.27)

1871
(25 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

75 per 1000

70 per 1000
(52 to 96)

Moderate

Total mortality
Follow‐up: 12‐120 months

Study population

RR 0.88
(0.75 to 1.02)

2845
(6 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

196 per 1000

173 per 1000
(147 to 200)

Moderate

Hospitalisations
Follow‐up: 6‐12 months

Study population

RR 0.75
(0.62 to 0.92)

1328
(15 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

227 per 1000

170 per 1000
(141 to 209)

Moderate

Hospitalisations
Follow‐up: 12‐74 months

Study population

RR 0.92
(0.66 to 1.29)

2722
(5 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2,3

604 per 1000

556 per 1000
(399 to 779)

Moderate

Hospitalisations (HF‐specific admissions)
Follow‐up: 12‐120 months

Study population

RR 0.61
(0.46 to 0.8)

1036
(12 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1,2

182 per 1000

111 per 1000
(84 to 145)

Moderate

HRQoL
MLWHF score
Follow‐up: 6‐12 months

The mean HRQoL in the intervention groups was
5.8 lower
(9.21 to 2.44 lower)

1270
(13 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,3,4

HRQoL
All HRQoL measures
Follow‐up: 12‐120 months

The mean HRQoL in the intervention groups was
0.46 lower
(0.66 to 0.26 lower)

3240
(13 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2,3,4

HRQoL
MLWHF
Follow‐up: 6‐120 months

The mean HRQoL in the intervention groups was
9.49 lower
(17.48 to 1.5 lower)

329
(20 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2,3,4

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; CR: cardiac rehabilitation; HF: heart failure; HRQoL: health‐related quality of life; MLWHF: Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire; RR: risk ratio.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were poorly described; bias likely.
2 The 95% CIs include both no effect and appreciable benefit or harm (i.e. RR < 0.75 or > 1.25).
3 Moderate heterogeneity (I2 > 50%).
4 Funnel plots or Egger test (or both) suggest evidence of asymmetry.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 6. Exercise‐based cardiac rehabilitation for heart disease
Table 7. Psychological‐based interventions for coronary heart disease

Psychological‐based interventions for coronary heart disease

Patient or population: people with CHD
Settings:
Intervention: psychological‐based interventions

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Psychological‐based interventions

Total mortality
Follow‐up: 6‐12 months

Study population

RR 0.89
(0.75 to 1.05)

6852
(17 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

93 per 1000

83 per 1000
(70 to 98)

Moderate

Cardiovascular mortality
Follow‐up: 6‐15 months

Study population

RR 0.80
(0.64 to 1)

3893
(5 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

85 per 1000

68 per 1000
(55 to 85)

Moderate

MI (non‐fatal)
Follow‐up: 6‐15 months

Study population

RR 0.87
(0.67 to 1.13)

7534
(12 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

83 per 1000

72 per 1000
(55 to 94)

Moderate

Revascularisation (CABG and PTCA combined)
Follow‐up: 6‐15 months

Study population

RR 0.95
(0.8 to 1.13)

6670
(12 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

121 per 1000

115 per 1000
(97 to 137)

Moderate

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CABG: coronary artery bypass graft; CHD: coronary heart disease; CI: confidence interval; MI: myocardial infarction; PTCA: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; RR: risk ratio.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were poorly described; bias likely.
2 The 95% CIs include both no effect and appreciable benefit or harm (i.e. RR < 0.75 or > 1.25).

Figuras y tablas -
Table 7. Psychological‐based interventions for coronary heart disease
Table 8. Education‐based interventions for coronary heart disease

Education‐based interventions forcoronary heart disease

Patient or population: people with CHD
Settings:
Intervention: education‐based interventions

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Education‐based interventions

Total mortality
deaths
Follow‐up: median 18 months

Study population

RR 0.79
(0.55 to 1.13)

2330
(6 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

96 per 1000

76 per 1000
(53 to 108)

Moderate

Hospitalisations

Study population

RR 0.83
(0.65 to 1.07)

12,905
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

64 per 1000

53 per 1000
(41 to 68)

Moderate

MI

Study population

RR 0.63
(0.26 to 1.48)

209
(2 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low2

118 per 1000

74 per 1000
(31 to 174)

Moderate

CABG

Study population

RR 0.58
(0.19 to 1.71)

209
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low2

78 per 1000

45 per 1000
(15 to 134)

Moderate

All‐cause withdrawal

Study population

RR 1.03
(0.83 to 1.27)

2862
(8 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

181 per 1000

186 per 1000
(150 to 230)

Moderate

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CABG: coronary artery bypass graft; CHD: coronary heart disease; CI: confidence interval; MI: myocardial infarction; RR: risk ratio.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 The 95% CIs include both no effect and appreciable benefit or harm (i.e. RR < 0.75 or > 1.25).
2 The 95% CIs include both no effect and substantial benefit or harm (i.e. RR < 0.50 or > 1.50).

Figuras y tablas -
Table 8. Education‐based interventions for coronary heart disease
Table 9. Home‐based cardiac rehabilitation compared with centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation for heart disease

Home‐based cardiac rehabilitation compared with centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation for heart disease

Patient or population: people with heart disease
Settings:
Intervention: home‐based CR
Comparison: centre‐based CR

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Centre‐based CR

Home‐based CR

Total mortality
Follow‐up: 3‐12 months

Study population

RR 0.79
(0.43 to 1.47)

1166
(7 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2

27 per 1000

22 per 1000
(12 to 40)

Moderate

All‐cause withdrawal
Follow‐up: median 6 months

Study population

RR 1.04
(1.01 to 1.07)

1984
(18 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

874 per 1000

909 per 1000
(883 to 936)

Moderate

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; CR: cardiac rehabilitation; RR: risk ratio.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were poorly described; bias likely.
2 The 95% CIs include both no effect and appreciable benefit or harm (i.e. RR < 0.75 or > 1.25).

Figuras y tablas -
Table 9. Home‐based cardiac rehabilitation compared with centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation for heart disease
Table 10. Summary of outcome results across Cochrane systematic reviews

Review short title

(reference)

Exercise for CHD

(Heran 2011)

Exercise for HF

(Taylor 2014b)

Psychological for CHD

(Whalley 2011)

Education for CHD

(Brown 2011)

Home vs. centre

(Taylor 2014a)

Uptake and adherence

(Karmali 2014)

Total mortality

Follow‐up < 12 months

19 RCTs (6000 participants),

RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01

I2 = 0%

Follow‐up > 12 months

16 RCTs (5790 participants)

RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99

I2 = 0%

Follow‐up < 12 months

25 RCTs (1871 participants)

RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.697 to 1.27

I2 = 0%

Follow‐up > 12 months

6 RCTs (2845 participants)

RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02

I2 = 34%

17 RCTs (6852 participants)

RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.05

I2 = 2%

6 RCTs (2330 participants)

RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13

I2 = 16%

Follow‐up < 12 months

7 RCTs (1166 participants)

RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.47

I2 = 0%

Follow‐up > 12 months

1 RCT (525 participants)

RR 1.99; 95% CI 0.50 to 7.88

3 RCTs (211 participants)

0/3 RCTs reported a significant difference between intervention and control groups

(no pooling of data)

Cardiovascular mortality

Follow‐up < 12 months

9 RCTs (4130 participants)

RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21

I2 = 0.0%

Follow‐up > 12 months

12 RCTs (4757)

RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.87

I2 = 0%

"Studies did not consistently report deaths due to heart failure or sudden death"

5 RCTs (3893 participants)

RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.6 to 1.00

I2 = 0.0%

NR

NR

NR

Hospitalisation

Follow‐up < 12 months

4 RCTs (463 participants)

RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.93

I2 = 12%

Follow‐up > 12 months

7 RCTs (2009 participants)

RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.11

I2 = 56%

Follow‐up < 12 months

15 RCTs (1328 participants)

RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.92

I2 = 0%

Follow‐up > 12 months

5 RCTs (2722 participants)

RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.29

I2 = 63%

NR

At end of follow‐up period

4 RCTs (12,905 participants)

RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07

I2 = 32%

1 RCT

No difference between home‐based and centre‐based CR

3 RCTs (numbers NR)

No significant difference between intervention and control groups

(no pooling of data)

HF‐specific admissions

NR

Follow‐up > 12 months

12 RCTs (1036 participants)

RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80

I2 = 34%

NR

1 RCT

Participants in the intervention group had 41% fewer (P value = 0.05) and 61% fewer heart‐related inpatient days

(P value = 0.02) than in the control group

NR

NR

Events

MI

Fatal or non‐fatal(or both) MI

Follow‐up < 12 months

12 RCTs (4216 participants)

RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.22

I2 = 19%

Follow‐up > 12 months

16 RCTs (5682 participants)

RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.15

I2 = 25%

NR

Non‐fatal MI

12 RCTs (7534 participants)

RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.13

I2 = 31%

MI at the end of the follow‐up period

2 RCTs (209 participants)

RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.48

I2 = 0%

2 RCTs

No difference between home‐based and centre‐based CR (no pooling of data performed)

CHD event rates

3 RCTs (414 participants)

2/3 RCTs reported no difference between intervention and control groups

1 RCT (228 participants)

RR 1.66, P value < 0.01

CABG

Follow‐up < 12 months

14 RCTs (2312 participants)

RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.24

I2 = 0%

Follow‐up > 12 months

9 RCTs (2189 participants)

RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.27

I2 = 0%

NR

Revascularisation (CABG and PTCA combined)

12 RCTs (6670 participants)

RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.13

I2 = 13%

At end of follow‐up period

2 RCTs (209 participants)

RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.71

I2 = 0%

Not reported by RCTs

PTCA

Follow‐up < 12 months

7 RCTs (1328 participants)

RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.50

I2 = 12%

Follow‐up > 12 months

6 RCTs (1322 participants)

RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.19

I2 = 20%

NR

Revascularisation (CABG and PTCA combined)

12 RCTs (6670 participants)

RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.13

I2 = 13%

Not reported by RCTs

Not reported by RCTs

HRQoL

10 RCTs

7/10 RCTs reported evidence of a significantly higher level of HRQoL with intervention at follow‐up

20 RCTs

Follow‐up < 12 months

13 RCTs (1270 participants)

MLWHF score: MD ‐5.8; 95% CI ‐9.2 to ‐2.4

I2 = 70%

Follow up > 12 months

3 RCTs (329 participants)

MD ‐9.5; 95% CI ‐17.54 to ‐1.5

I2 = 73%

All HRQoL measures pooled

20 RCTs (3240 participants)

SMD ‐0.5; 95% CI ‐0.7 to ‐0.3

I2 = 79%

7 RCTs

1/7 RCTs reported evidence of a significantly higher level of HRQoL with intervention at follow‐up

Across 11 RCTs, 81 HRQoL outcome scores/sub‐scores reported:

14/81 in favour of intervention compared to control

67/81 no significant difference between intervention and control

5/11 RCTs reported evidence of a significantly higher level of some HRQoL domains with intervention at follow‐up

No consistent difference in HRQoL total or domain score at follow‐up between intervention and control

10 RCTs

8/10 RCTs reported improvements in HRQoL at follow‐up with both home‐based and centre‐based CR compared with baseline

No strong evidence of difference in overall HRQoL outcomes or domain score at follow up between home‐based and centre‐based CR

2 RCTs

1/2 RCTs reported improvement in HRQoL with intervention (not significant)

1/2 RCTs reported improvement in both groups but no significant difference between intervention and control

Economics

Costs

Cost‐effectiveness

Costs

3 RCTs

2/3 studies reported total healthcare costs were not statistically significantly different between groups

Cost‐effectiveness

1 RCT

Authors concluded that rehabilitation was an efficient use of healthcare resources and may be economically justified

3 RCTs

2 studies undertook a cost effectiveness analysis and 1 reported costs

There was no evidence of significantly different costs or outcomes

NR

5 RCTs reported healthcare utilisation costs

2/5 RCTs reported an overall mean net saving of USD965 per participant at 6 months follow‐up and USD1420 per participant at 24 months follow‐up

1/5 RCTs reported an increase in mean net costs of USD52 per participant

2/5 RCTs reported no difference between groups

No RCTs reported cost‐effectiveness

3/4 RCTs reported healthcare costs associated with CR were lower for the home‐based than centre‐based programmes

1/4 RCTs reported that home‐based CR was more costly than centre‐based CR but costs would be the same if participant travel costs and travel time were included

8 studies reported different aspects of consumption of healthcare resources

No significant between group differences were seen

NR

All‐cause withdrawal /drop‐out at follow‐up

NR

NR

NR

At follow‐up

8 RCTs (2862 participants)

RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.27

I2 = 34%

At follow‐up

18 (1894 participants)

RR 1.04; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08

I2 = 44%

NR

Uptake

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

10 RCTs (1338 participants)

8/10 RCTs reported uptake was significantly higher in intervention group

Adherence

NR

NR

NR

NR

14 RCTs

*3/14 RCTs reported adherence was significantly higher in home‐based CR

8 RCTs (1150 participants)

3/8 RCTs reported adherence was significantly higher in intervention group

CABG: coronary artery bypass graft; CHD: coronary heart disease; CR: cardiac rehabilitation; HF: heart failure; HRQoL: health‐related quality of life; MD: mean difference; MI: myocardial infarction; MLWHF: Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire; NR: not reported; PTCA: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio; SMD: standardised mean difference.

* As reported in the 'Summary of findings' table. Effects of interventions section states 4/14.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 10. Summary of outcome results across Cochrane systematic reviews