Heart Rehabilitation in patients awaiting Open heart surgery targeting to prevent Complications and to improve Quality of life (Heart-ROCQ): study protocol for a prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial.

INTRODUCTION: The rising prevalence of modifiable risk factors (eg, obesity, hypertension and physical inactivity) is causing an increase in possible avoidable complications in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This study aims to assess whether a combined preoperative and postoperative multidisciplinary cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme (Heart-ROCQ programme) can improve functional status and reduce surgical complications, readmissions and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) as compared with standard care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients (n=350) are randomised to the Heart-ROCQ programme or standard care. The Heart-ROCQ programme consists of a preoperative optimisation phase while waiting for surgery (three times per week, minimum of 3 weeks), a postoperative inpatient phase (3 weeks) and an outpatient CR phase (two times per week, 4 weeks). Patients receive multidisciplinary treatment (eg, physical therapy, dietary advice, psychological sessions and smoking cessation). Standard care consists of 6 weeks of postsurgery outpatient CR with education and physical therapy (two times per week). The primary outcome is a composite weighted score of functional status, surgical complications, readmissions and MACE, and is evaluated by a blinded endpoint committee. The secondary outcomes are length of stay, physical and psychological functioning, lifestyle risk factors, and work participation. Finally, an economic evaluation is performed. Data are collected at six time points: at baseline (start of the waiting period), the day before surgery, at discharge from the hospital, and at 3, 7 and 12 months postsurgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will be conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (V.8, October 2013). The protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethical Review Board of the UMCG (no 2016/464). Results of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal and can be presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02984449.

Spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of refractory angina: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper was undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the management of refractory angina. METHODS: We searched a number of electronic databases including Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library up to February 2008 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting exercise capacity, ischemic burden, functional class, quality of life, usage of anti-anginal medication, costs and adverse events including mortality. Results were reported both descriptively for each study and using random effects meta-analysis. Given the variety in outcomes reported, some outcome results were pooled as standardised mean differences (SMD) and reported in standard deviation units. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were identified in a total of 270 refractory angina patients. The outcomes of SCS were found to be similar when directly compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous myocardial laser revascularisation (PMR). Compared to a 'no stimulation' control, there was some evidence of improvement in all outcomes following SCS implantation with significant gains observed in pooled exercise capacity (SMD: 0.76, 0.07 to 1.46, p = 0.03) and health-related quality of life (SMD: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.34, p = 0.001). Trials were small and were judged to range considerably in their quality. The healthcare costs of SCS appeared to be lower than CABG at 2-years follow up. CONCLUSION: SCS appears to be an effective and safe treatment option in the management of refractory angina patients and of similar efficacy and safety to PMR, a potential alternative treatment. Further high quality RCT and cost effectiveness evidence is needed before SCS can be accepted as a routine treatment for refractory angina.