Impact of ambulatory cardiac rehabilitation on cardiovascular outcomes: a long-term follow-up study.

AIMS: To evaluate the long-term clinical impact of the application of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) early after discharge in a real-world population. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed the 5-year incidence of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization for cardiovascular causes in two populations, attenders vs. non-attenders to an ambulatory CR program which were consecutively discharged from two tertiary hospitals, after ST-elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft, or planned percutaneous coronary intervention. A primary analysis using multivariable regression model and a secondary analysis using the propensity score approach were performed. Between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010, 839 patients attended a CR program planned at discharged, while 441 patients were discharged from Cardiovascular Department without any program of CR. During follow-up, the incidence of cardiovascular mortality was 6% in both groups (P = 0.62). The composite outcome of hospitalizations for cardiovascular causes and cardiovascular mortality were lower in CR group compared to no-CR group (18% vs. 30%, P < 0.001) and was driven by lower hospitalizations for cardiovascular causes (15 vs. 27%, P < 0.001). At multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis, CR program was independent predictor of lower occurrence of the composite outcome (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.77; P < 0.001), while in the propensity-matched analysis CR group experienced also a lower total mortality (10% vs. 19%, P = 0.002) and cardiovascular mortality (2% vs. 7%, P = 0.008) compared to no-CR group. CONCLUSION: This study showed, in a real-world population, the positive effects of ambulatory CR program in improving clinical outcomes and highlights the importance of a spread use of CR in order to reduce cardiovascular hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality during a long-term follow-up.

[The role of ambulatory cardiac rehabilitation on return to work of patients with cardiovascular diseases]. / Impatto della riabilitazione cardiaca ambulatoriale per la ripresa dell'attività lavorativa del cardiopatico.

SUMMARY: Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in developed countries and about 50% of myocardial infarctions occur in working age individuals. Return to work rates are determined by cardiovascular parameters as well as by psychosocial factors and a Cardiac Rehabilitation program after an acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularization has shown to improve the cardiovascular outcome, occupational recovery and professional reintegration through a multidisciplinary intervention including physical exercise, lipid and blood pressure control, smoking cessation program, nutritional advice, psychological counselling and target-driven pharmacological therapies. The collaboration between cardiologist and occupational physician is crucial in the transition from illness to an active social position defining the work eligibility with the assessment of cardiological profile, comorbidities, psychological functions, worker's ability and functional capacity.

Prognostic Role of Left Ventricular Dysfunction in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease After an Ambulatory Cardiac Rehabilitation Program.

The relationship between left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and outcomes after cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is not well established; therefore we assessed the prognostic role of LVEF at the end of ambulatory CR program in patients (pts) who received coronary revascularization. LVEF was evaluated at hospital discharge and re-assessed at the end of CR in all ST-elevation myocardial infarction and coronary artery bypass graft pts, while in pts with non-ST-elevation MI or elective percutaneous coronary intervention the echocardiography was repeated if they had an impaired LVEF at discharge. New hospitalizations for cardiovascular causes at 1-year, and cardiovascular mortality during long-term follow-up were analyzed. We enrolled in CR 3078 pts, 86% showed LVEF ≥40% and 9% LVEF <40%. Of those with a discharge LVEF <40%, 56% improved LVEF (LVEF ≥40%) after CR. At 1-year, heart failure was the main cause of new hospitalizations in LVEF <40% group compared with LVEF ≥40% group (5% vs 0.4%, p <0.01). During a mean follow up of 48 ± 25 months, cardiovascular death occurred in 9% of pts with LVEF <40% and in 2% with LVEF ≥40% (p = 0.014). At Cox multivariate analysis, LVEF <40% at the end of CR and age were independent predictors of hospitalization and mortality for cardiovascular causes, while coronary artery bypass graft was a protective factor. In conclusion, during CR the improvement of LVEF occurs in a relevant proportion of patients, the re-assessment of LVEF at the end of the CR is helpful for risk stratification because left ventricle dysfunction at the end of CR is associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes.

Early occurrence of drug intolerance as risk factor during follow-up in patients with acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularization.

Aims: The occurrence of drug intolerance (DI) after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an important reason for quitting treatment. Nevertheless, the association between DI and major cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) is poorly reported in the literature, therefore, we analysed potential relationship between DI and MACCE (a composite of ACS, PCI, heart failure, and stroke) during follow-up. Methods and results: From 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2015, 891 consecutive patients after ACS or coronary revascularization were referred to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme and included in a dedicated registry where DI was analysed and treatment appropriately tailored. Three hundred and nine patients (34.7%) developed DI, 26.9% of them were female. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and statins were the most frequent drugs which caused DI, followed by beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers, in 13.1%, 12.8%, 7.5%, and 5.5% of patients, respectively. During a median follow-up of 18 (interquartile range 11-24) months after CR, MACCE occurred in 14.1% of patients with DI and 8.1% without DI (P = 0.007). At multivariable model, DI to 1 drug [odds ratio (OR) 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-3.18; P = 0.043] or to 2 drugs (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.27-5.17; P = 0.008) were independently associated to MACCE. Regarding the association of specific class of prognostic drugs to MACCE, only DI to ACE-inhibitors was independently associated with MACCE (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.14-4.65; P = 0.019). Conclusion: DI was frequently encountered in real-world clinical practice and was significantly associated with MACCE during follow-up. This study suggests that early occurrence of DI could be considered to be an adjunctive cardiovascular risk factor during secondary prevention.

Current management and treatment of patients with stable coronary artery diseases presenting to cardiologists in different clinical contexts: A prospective, observational, nationwide study.

Background Stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Few studies document the complete sequence of investigation of the overall stable CAD population during outpatient visits or hospitalisation. Aim To obtain accurate and up-to-date information on current management of patients with stable CAD. Methods START (STable coronary Artery diseases RegisTry) was a prospective, observational, nationwide study aimed at evaluating the presentation, management, treatment and quality of life of stable CAD patients presenting to cardiologists during outpatient visits or discharged from cardiology wards. Results Over a 3-month period, 5070 consecutive patients were enrolled in 183 participating centres: 72% managed by a cardiologist during outpatient or day hospital visits and 28% discharged from cardiology wards. The vast majority of patients (87%) received a coronary angiography (86% of patients managed during outpatient visits and 90% during hospitalisation; p < 0.0001). Outpatients more frequently received optimal medical therapy (OMT; i.e. aspirin or thienopyridine, ß-blockers and statins) compared to hospitalised patients (70.2% vs 67.1%; p = 0.03). A personalised diet was prescribed in 58% (60.5% in outpatients and 52.9% in those admitted to hospitals; p < 0.0001), physical activity programmes were suggested in 65% (69.4% and 54.3%; p < 0.0001) and smoking cessation was recommended in 71% of currently smoking patients (73.2% and 65.2%; p = 0.02). Conclusions In this large, contemporary registry, patients with stable CAD discharged from cardiology wards more commonly underwent diagnostic imaging procedures and less frequently received OMT or lifestyle modification programmes compared to patients manged by cardiologists during outpatient visits.

'PERFSCORE' - a multidimensional score: a simple way to predict the success of cardiac rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: We propose a simple and reliable score, performance score ('PERFSCORE'), that allows cardiologists to assess the achievement of therapeutic goals. METHODS: We identified six indicators of cardiac rehabilitation performance: heart rate (HR) less than 70 beats/min; blood pressure (BP) less than 140/90 mmHg; smoking cessation or non-smokers; left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) more than 40%; LDLc less than 100 mg/dl or more than 70 mg/dl if diabetic; and on treatment at least with three drugs among angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs), ß-blockers, statins, and ASA. These six indicators are considered to be the collective expression of a latent variable measuring performance. To assess the relative contribution of each indicator in the definition of cardiac rehabilitation performance, we fitted a structural equation model using the 'Stata 13' system. RESULTS: A total of 839 consecutive patients were analyzed; 49% had recent ST- elevation myocardial infarction/non-ST elevation myocardial infarction and 51% had undergone elective percutaneous coronary intervention/coronary artery bypass graft. At the end of cardiac rehabilitation, LVEF was 55 ±â€Š11%; HR, 69 ±â€Š13 beats/min; SBP, 135 ±â€Š20 mmHg; DBP, 79 ±â€Š10 mmHg; LDLc, 88 ±â€Š29 mg/dl; 56% had stopped smoking; 71% were on ß-blockers; 78% ACE inhibitors or ARBs; 87% were on statins, and 96% were on ASA. Weights for each indicator in the PERFSCORE were 0.57 for HR, 0.40 for BP, 0.87 for LVEF, 0.78 for smoking, 0.42 for LDLc, and 0.75 for drugs, multiplied by 1 if the target has been reached, otherwise by 0. Higher performance values correspond to better cardiac rehabilitation results. The point range was 0-36: less than 24, not satisfying cardiac rehabilitation; 24-29, satisfying cardiac rehabilitation; and more than 29, optimal cardiac rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we propose an easy algorithm to calculate the success of cardiac rehabilitation.

[Ambulatory cardiac rehabilitation in Trieste: protocols of intervention, activities and outcomes]. / Riabilitazione cardiologica ambulatoriale a Trieste: protocolli, attività ed esiti.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a model of care proven to reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with coronary artery disease. The aim of this study is to describe the ambulatory CR model of the Cardiovascular Department of Trieste (Italy), analyzing the outcome of the population. METHODS: We analyzed clinical and instrumental characteristics of all consecutive patients after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), coronary artery bypass graft with or without valve surgery (CABG/CABGV), or planned percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), referred for CR from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2015. All patients were included in a registry. During CR and at 1-year follow-up, the incidence of new hospitalizations due to cardiovascular causes was assessed. Total and cardiovascular mortality was also evaluated at longer follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 3088 patients (28% female, mean age 70 ± 11 years; 35% older than 75 years) were referred for CR, 30% after STEMI, 23% after NSTEMI, 29% after CABG/CABGV, and 19% after PCI. At enrollment, 9% of patients had an ejection fraction <40%, 76% were hypertensive, 61% dyslipidemic, 19% diabetics, and 27% smokers. CR lasted 5 ± 4 months. At the end of the CR program, 96% of patients were on antiplatelets, 79% on beta-blockers, 73% on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, 25% on angiotensin II receptor blockers, and 87% on statins with achievement of the following secondary prevention targets: LDL cholesterol 85 ± 30 mg/dl, glycated hemoglobin 7.2 ± 4%, heart rate 64 ± 11 bpm, systolic/diastolic blood pressure 137 ± 32/78 ± 14 mmHg. During CR, new hospitalizations occurred in 11% of patients, 1% within 1 year after CR. At a mean follow-up of 4.4 ± 2 years, 11% of patients died, 3% for cardiovascular causes, 0.7% within 1 year. Cardiovascular mortality was significantly higher in elderly patients (6 vs 2%, p=0.000), women (4 vs 3%, p=0.038), diabetics (5 vs 3%, p=0.004), and in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (8 vs 3%, p=0.000). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show the feasibility of a CR program in an unselected population, characterized by advanced age, risk factors and comorbidities. A critical analysis of the registry data allowed us to achieve good results in secondary prevention and outcomes.

In-hospital and one-year outcomes of patients with high-risk acute myocardial infarction treated with thrombolysis or primary coronary angioplasty.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to observe the outcomes of high-risk patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty and intravenous thrombolysis in a community setting. METHODS: A prospective study of the in-hospital and 12-month outcomes was conducted in 17 cardiology centers where primary angioplasty was available, and in 30 where it was not. Three thousand seventy-four patients in the first 12 hours of an evolving infarction were recruited; among these, 2227 patients who met one or more pre-defined criteria of increased risk were included in the study. RESULTS: Thrombolysis and primary angioplasty were respectively performed in 1090 and in 721 patients; 416 patients (18.7%) received no reperfusion treatment. The incidence of the primary combined in-hospital endpoint (death, non-fatal reinfarction and stroke) was similar in patients treated with thrombolysis (9.2%) and with primary angioplasty (10.7%) (odds ratio--OR 1.19, 95% confidence interval--CI 0.86-1.63, p = NS), and was higher (22.6%) in patients receiving no reperfusion treatment as compared to thrombolysis (OR 3.30, 95% CI 2.36-4.63, p < 0.0001). The occurrence of the 12-month endpoint (death, reinfarction, congestive heart failure and recurrent angina) was lower after primary angioplasty than after thrombolysis (26.8 vs 35.0%, OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.84, p = 0.0003), due to a lower incidence of angina. At multivariate analysis, older age, anterior infarction, Killip class > 1, high heart rate, and low systolic blood pressure on admission were all significantly associated with a higher incidence of both endpoints. The adjusted analysis confirmed that, despite similar in-hospital results after both reperfusion treatments, primary angioplasty was independently associated with better 1-year outcomes (relative risk 0.66, 95% CI 0.56-0.79, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this observation in the community setting, a strategy of primary angioplasty in patients with high-risk myocardial infarction was not better than thrombolysis in terms of mortality or recurrent infarction, but was associated with less angina at 1 year.