Long-term benefits of cardiac rehabilitation: a five-year follow-up of community-based phase 4 programmes

Br J Cardiol 2009;16:73-77 Leave a comment
Click any image to enlarge
Authors:

It is well recognised that phase 3 cardiac rehabilitation is beneficial, reducing both mortality and morbidity following acute myocardial infarction. The role of ongoing phase 4 cardiac rehabilitation is less clear. This study was designed to assess the effectiveness of phase 4 cardiac rehabilitation in acute myocardial infarction.

Following acute myocardial infarction, 143 patients who had completed phase 3 cardiac rehabilitation were followed up. Analysis was divided into three groups: those who took up phase 4 rehabilitation, those offered who declined and those not offered phase 4 rehabilitation because it was not available locally. Risk factor profile, self-reported exercise and quality-of-life scores using the short form (SF)-36 were assessed in all patients.

Body mass index (BMI) shows no overall change in the ‘accepted’ group, but shows a significant increase between pre and five-year levels in the ‘declined’ group (p=0.024) and in the ‘not offered’ group (p=0.014). All groups showed an increase of SF-36 scores following phase 3, which showed a trend towards significance. Both the ‘accepted’ and ‘not offered’ groups maintained this improvement, while the ‘declined’ group returned to baseline (p=0.05 vs. ‘accepted’ and p=0.03 vs. ‘not offered’). All groups had similar exercise levels initially and all showed significant improvements after phase 3 with some deterioration out to five years. This decline in exercise was significant in the ‘declined’ group (p=0.029) and shows a trend in the ‘not offered’ group (p=0.057).

This small single-centre study suggests that there are observable benefits in participating in long-term phase 4 cardiac rehabilitation. Those who decline phase 4 cardiac rehabilitation clearly do less well. Whether the benefits seen can be attributed directly to phase 4 cardiac rehabilitation would require a different study design to address this issue.

Pay to access this premium content £5

The BJC is introducing a small charge for some of its premium content. On purchase you will receive an email to access the article and have a downloadable PDF to keep. The PDF can be downloaded from a button on the sidebar. Please note the purchase of this article is for your personal use only.
By supporting us in this way, you are helping us to deliver high-quality services to healthcare professionals. We will continue to keep the majority of our content free of charge.


You can access this article without logging in.
But don't miss out on the many Benefits of our Membership. Register Now.
Already a member? Login Now.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO COMMENTS FOR THIS ARTICLE - LEAVE A COMMENT