Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure

BACKGROUND

People with heart failure experience substantial disease burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous 2018 Cochrane review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission amongst people with heart failure, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with heart failure with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with heart failure with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in a hospital or centre-based setting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ExCR on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of adults with heart failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science without language restriction on 13 December 2021. We also checked the bibliographies of included studies, identified relevant systematic reviews, and two clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ExCR interventions (either exercise only or exercise as part of a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation) with a follow-up of six months or longer versus a no-exercise control (e.g. usual medical care). The study population comprised adults (≥ 18 years) with heart failure - either HFrEF or HFpEF.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, mortality due to heart failure, all-cause hospital admissions, heart failure-related hospital admissions, and HRQoL. Secondary outcomes were costs and cost-effectiveness. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 60 trials (8728 participants) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 16 new trials (2945 new participants), in addition to the previously identified 44 trials (5783 existing participants). Although the existing evidence base predominantly includes patients with HFrEF, with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes II and III receiving centre-based ExCR programmes, a growing body of trials includes patients with HFpEF with ExCR undertaken in a home-based setting. All included trials employed a usual care comparator with a formal no-exercise intervention as well as a wide range of active comparators, such as education, psychological intervention, or medical management. The overall risk of bias in the included trials was low or unclear, and we mostly downgraded the certainty of evidence of outcomes upon GRADE assessment. There was no evidence of a difference in the short term (up to 12 months' follow-up) in the pooled risk of all-cause mortality when comparing ExCR versus usual care (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.21; absolute effects 5.0% versus 5.8%; 34 trials, 36 comparisons, 3941 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only a few trials reported information on whether participants died due to heart failure. Participation in ExCR versus usual care likely reduced the risk of all-cause hospital admissions (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; absolute effects 15.9% versus 23.8%; 23 trials, 24 comparisons, 2283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and heart failure-related hospital admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.35; absolute effects 5.6% versus 6.4%; 10 trials; 10 comparisons, 911 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) in the short term. Participation in ExCR likely improved short-term HRQoL as measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLWHF) questionnaire (lower scores indicate better HRQoL and a difference of 5 points or more indicates clinical importance; mean difference (MD) -7.39 points, 95% CI -10.30 to -4.77; 21 trials, 22 comparisons, 2699 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). When pooling HRQoL data measured by any questionnaire/scale, we found that ExCR may improve HRQoL in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (33 trials, 37 comparisons, 4769 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.34; very-low certainty evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent across different models of ExCR delivery: centre- versus home-based, exercise dose, exercise only versus comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone versus aerobic plus resistance programmes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated Cochrane review provides additional randomised evidence (16 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous 2018 version of the review. Compared to no exercise control, whilst there was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality in people with heart failure, ExCR participation likely reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and heart failure-related hospital admissions, and may result in important improvements in HRQoL. Importantly, this updated review provides additional evidence supporting the use of alternative modes of ExCR delivery, including home-based and digitally-supported programmes. Future ExCR trials need to focus on the recruitment of traditionally less represented heart failure patient groups including older patients, women, and those with HFpEF.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure - 2023 Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Despite strong evidence, access to exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) remains low across global healthcare systems. We provide a contemporary update of the Cochrane review randomized trial evidence for ExCR for adults with heart failure (HF) and compare different delivery modes: centre-based, home-based (including digital support), and both (hybrid).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Databases, bibliographies of previous systematic reviews and included trials, and trials registers were searched with no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials, recruiting adults with HF, assigned to either ExCR or a no-exercise control group, with follow-up of ≥6 months were included. Two review authors independently screened titles for inclusion, extracted trial and patient characteristics, outcome data, and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes of mortality, hospitalization, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were pooled across trials using meta-analysis at short-term (≤12 months) and long-term follow-up (>12 months) and stratified by delivery mode. Sixty trials (8728 participants) were included. In the short term, compared to control, ExCR did not impact all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.21), reduced all-cause hospitalization (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.86, number needed to treat: 13, 95% CI 9-22), and was associated with a clinically important improvement in HRQoL measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHF) overall score (mean difference: -7.39; 95% CI -10.30 to -4.47). Improvements in outcomes with ExCR was seen across centre, home (including digitally supported), and hybrid settings. A similar pattern of results was seen in the long term (mortality: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72-1.04; all-cause hospitalization: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.01, MLWHF: -9.59, 95% CI -17.48 to -1.50).

CONCLUSIONS

To improve global suboptimal levels of uptake for HF patients, global healthcare systems need to routinely recommend ExCR and offer a choice of mode of delivery, dependent on an individual patient's level of risk and complexity.

Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based and technology-supported cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation, especially during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009, 2015, and 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of home-based (which may include digital/telehealth interventions) and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, exercise-capacity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) on 16 September 2022. We also searched two clinical trials registers as well as previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, sports/community centre) with home-based programmes (± digital/telehealth platforms) in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure, or who had undergone revascularisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on predefined inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third review author. Two authors independently extracted outcome data and study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three new trials in this update, bringing a total of 24 trials that have randomised a total of 3046 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. A further nine studies were identified and are awaiting classification. Manual searching of trial registers until 16 September 2022 revealed a further 14 clinical trial registrations - these are ongoing. Participants had a history of acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation, or heart failure. Although there was little evidence of high risk of bias, a number of studies provided insufficient detail to enable assessment of potential risk of bias; in particular, details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequencing and blinding of outcome assessment were poorly reported. No evidence of a difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in our primary outcomes up to 12 months of follow-up: total mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65 to 2.16; participants = 1647; studies = 12/comparisons = 14; low-certainty evidence) or exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.10, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.04; participants = 2343; studies = 24/comparisons = 28; low-certainty evidence). The majority of evidence (N=71 / 77 comparisons of either total or domain scores) showed no significant difference in health-related quality of life up to 24 months follow-up between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Trials were generally of short duration, with only three studies reporting outcomes beyond 12 months (exercise capacity: SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.23; participants = 1074; studies = 3; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a similar level of trial completion (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.08; participants = 2638; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low-certainty evidence) between home-based and centre-based participants. The cost per patient of centre- and home-based programmes was similar.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update supports previous conclusions that home- (± digital/telehealth platforms) and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation formally supported by healthcare staff seem to be similarly effective in improving clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction, or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding supports the continued expansion of healthcare professional supervised home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes (± digital/telehealth platforms), especially important in the context of the ongoing global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic that has much limited patients in face-to-face access of hospital and community health services. Where settings are able to provide both supervised centre- and home-based programmes, consideration of the preference of the individual patient would seem appropriate. Although not included in the scope of this review, there is an increasing evidence base supporting the use of hybrid models that combine elements of both centre-based and home-based cardiac rehabilitation delivery. Further data are needed to determine: (1) whether the short-term effects of home/digital-telehealth and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation models of delivery can be confirmed in the longer term; (2) the relative clinical effectiveness and safety of home-based programmes for other heart patients, e.g. post-valve surgery and atrial fibrillation.

Cardiac rehabilitation for patients with heart failure: association with readmission and mortality risk

AIMS

To examine the temporal trends and factors associated with national cardiac rehabilitation (CR) referral and compare the risk of hospital readmission and mortality in those referred for CR versus no referral.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This cohort study includes all adult patients alive 120 days from incident heart failure (HF) identified by the Danish Heart Failure Registry (n = 33 257) between 2010 and 2018. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association between CR referral and patient factors and acute all-cause hospital readmission and mortality at 1 year following HF admission. Overall, 46.7% of HF patients were referred to CR, increasing from 31.7% in 2010 to 52.2% in 2018. Several factors were associated with lower odds of CR referral: male sex [odds ratio (OR): 0.85; 95% confidence interval: 0.80-0.89], older age, unemployment, retirement, living alone, non-Danish ethnic origin, low educational level, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV vs. I (OR: 0.75; 0.60-0.95), left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, and comorbidity (stroke, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation/flutter, and diabetes). Myocardial infarction, arthritis, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, valvular surgery, NYHA class II, and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were associated with higher odds of CR referral. CR referral was associated with lower risk of acute all-cause readmission (OR: 0.92; 0.87-0.97) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.65; 0.58-0.72).

CONCLUSION

Although increased over time, only one in two HF patients in Denmark were referred to CR in 2018. Strategies are needed to reduce referral disparities, focusing on subgroups of patients at highest risk of non-referral.

Cardiac rehabilitation for patients with heart failure: a national Danish register-based study of predictors of referral and outcomes

Funding Acknowledgements

Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): The Danish Heart Foundation

Background

 Heart failure (HF) places a large burden on patients and society as a major cause of morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Participation in exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in people with HF is a clinically and cost-effective strategy and recommended in international clinical guidelines.

Purpose

The aims of this study were to: (1) examine the temporal trends and predictors of national CR referral, and (2) compare the risk of hospital readmission and mortality in those referred for CR compared to no referral.

Methods

All patients in Denmark with incident HF were identified by the Danish Heart Failure Register in the period 2010 to 2018 (n = 33,257) and CR referral assessed within 120 days of hospital admission. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between CR referral and predictors and to compare risk of hospital readmission and mortality until 1 year between referred and not referred patients.

Results

Overall, 45.0% of HF patients were referred to exercise-based CR, increasing from 31.7% in 2010 to 52.2% in 2018. Factors independently associated with higher CR referral were: NYHA functional class II, LVEF &lt;50%, diagnosis of myocardial infarction and use of ACE inhibitor. Male gender, older age, region, unemployment, retirement, living alone, non-Danish ethnic origin, lower educational level, NYHA class IV, treatment for hypertension, existing chronic obstructive lung disease and stroke were associated with lower CR referral. CR referral was associated with lower risk of readmission (adjusted odds ratio: 0.90;95%CI: 0.85-0.95), HF-specific mortality (0.61; 0.39-0.95) and all-cause mortality (0.61; 0.55-0.69) as compared to no referral.

Conclusions

Although CR referral has increased over time, only some 1 in 2 diagnosed HF patients in Denmark are referred to exercise-based CR. CR referral is associated with lower risk in readmissions and mortality. Strategies to promote CR referral including healthcare professional education on the benefits of CR and alternative methods of CR delivery are urgently needed to improve access to CR, especially for high-risk groups.

Process evaluation of a randomised pilot trial of home-based rehabilitation compared to usual care in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and their caregiver's

Background

Whilst almost 50% of heart failure (HF) patients have preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), evidence-based treatment options for this patient group remain limited. However, there is growing evidence of the potential value of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. This study reports the process evaluation of the Rehabilitation Enablement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) intervention for HFpEF patients and their caregivers conducted as part of the REACH-HFpEF pilot trial.

Methods

Process evaluation sub-study parallels to a single-centre (Tayside, Scotland) randomised controlled pilot trial with qualitative assessment of both intervention fidelity delivery and HFpEF patients’ and caregivers’ experiences. The REACH-HF intervention consisted of self-help manual for patients and caregivers, facilitated over 12 weeks by trained healthcare professionals. Interviews were conducted following completion of intervention in a purposeful sample of 15 HFpEF patients and seven caregivers.

Results

Qualitative information from the facilitator interactions and interviews identified three key themes for patients and caregivers: (1) understanding their condition, (2) emotional consequences of HF, and (3) responses to the REACH-HF intervention. Fidelity analysis found the interventions to be delivered adequately with scope for improvement in caregiver engagement. The differing professional backgrounds of REACH-HF facilitators in this study demonstrate the possibility of delivery of the intervention by healthcare staff with expertise in HF, cardiac rehabilitation, or both.

Conclusions

The REACH-HF home-based facilitated intervention for HFpEF appears to be a feasible and a well-accepted model for the delivery of rehabilitation, with the potential to address key unmet needs of patients and their caregivers who are often excluded from HF and current cardiac rehabilitation programmes. Results of this study will inform a recently funded full multicentre randomised clinical trial.

Trial registration

ISRCTN78539530 (date of registration 7 July 2015).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-020-00747-2.

The value of social practice theory for implementation science: learning from a theory-based mixed methods process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial

Background

Although there is trial evidence that complex interventions are effective for the self-management of heart failure, little evidence supports their effectiveness in routine practice. We used Social Practice Theory to guide a Type 1 Hybrid Trial: a mixed methods process evaluation of a complex intervention for heart failure. The objective of this paper is to explore the value of Social Practice Theory for implementation science.

Methods

Social Practice Theory informed a mixed methods process evaluation of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of a 12 week home-based intervention to optimise self-care support for people with heart failure and their caregivers - Rehabilitation EnAblement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF). Interviews were conducted with 19 people with heart failure and 17 caregivers at 4 months and 12 months after recruitment into the trial. Cases were constructed at the level of the individual, couple, facilitator and centre; and included multi-modal process and outcome data. Evaluative coding and subsequent within- and cross-case analyses enabled the development of a typology of relationships linking fidelity of intervention delivery and tailoring of content to individual needs and concerns. Social Practice Theory was used to interrogate the relationships between elements of the intervention and their implementation.

Results

Of 216 trial participants, 107 were randomised to the intervention (REACH-HF plus usual care). The intervention was most effective when fidelity was high and delivery was tailored to the individual’s needs, but less effective when both tailoring and fidelity were low. Theory-based analysis enabled us to model complex relationships between intervention elements (competencies, materials and meanings) and social context. The findings illustrate how intervention fidelity and tailoring are contextual and how the effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention depended on both optimal alignment and implementation of these elements.

Conclusion

The study demonstrates the utility of theory-based analysis which integrates data from multiple sources to highlight contexts and circumstances in which interventions work best. Social Practice Theory provides a framework for guiding and analysing the processes by which a complex intervention is evaluated in a clinical trial, and has the potential to guide context-specific implementation strategies for clinical practice.

Trial registration

ISRCTN, IISRCTN86234930. Registered 13th November 2014.

Getting evidence into clinical practice: protocol for evaluation of the implementation of a home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme for patients with heart failure

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves health-related quality of life and reduces hospital admissions. However, patients with heart failure (HF) often fail to attend centre-based CR programmes. Novel ways of delivering healthcare, such as home-based CR programmes, may improve uptake of CR. Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) is a new, effective and cost-effective home-based CR programme for people with HF. The aim of this prospective mixed-method implementation evaluation study is to assess the implementation of the REACH-HF CR programme in the UK National Health Service (NHS). The specific objectives are to (1) explore NHS staff perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of REACH-HF, (2) assess the quality of delivery of the programme in real-life clinical settings, (3) consider the nature of any adaptation(s) made and how they might impact on intervention effectiveness and (4) compare real-world patient outcomes to those seen in a prior clinical trial.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

REACH-HF will be rolled out in four NHS CR centres across the UK. Three healthcare professionals from each site will be trained to deliver the 12-week programme. In-depth qualitative interviews and focus groups will be conducted with approximately 24 NHS professionals involved in delivering or commissioning the programme. Consultations for 48 patients (12 per site) will be audio recorded and scored using an intervention fidelity checklist. Outcomes routinely recorded in the National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation will be analysed and compared with outcomes from a recent randomised controlled trial: the Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire and exercise capacity (Incremental Shuttle Walk Test). Qualitative research findings will be mapped onto the Normalisation Process Theory framework and presented in the form of a narrative synthesis. Results of the study will inform national roll-out of REACH-HF.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study (IRAS 261723) has received ethics approval from the South Central (Hampshire B) Research Ethics Committee (19/SC/0304). Written informed consent will be obtained from all health professionals and patients participating in the study. The research team will ensure that the study is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the Data Protection Act 2018, General Data Protection Regulations and in accordance with the Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care (2005). Findings will be published in scientific peer-reviewed journals and presented at local, national and international meetings to publicise and explain the research methods and findings to key audiences to facilitate the further uptake of the REACH-HF intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN86234930.

Home-based rehabilitation for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: mixed methods process evaluation of the REACH-HF multicentre randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To identify and explore change processes explaining the effects of the Rehabilitation Enablement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) intervention taking account of reach, amount of intervention received, delivery fidelity and patient and caregiver perspectives.

DESIGN

Mixed methods process evaluation parallel to a randomised controlled trial using data from the intervention group (REACH-HF plus usual care).

SETTING

Four centres in the UK (Birmingham, Cornwall, Gwent and York).

PARTICIPANTS

People with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and their caregivers.

METHODS

The REACH-HF intervention consisted of a self-help manual for patients with HFrEF and caregivers facilitated over 12 weeks by trained healthcare professionals. The process evaluation used multimodal mixed methods analysis. Data consisted of audio recorded intervention sessions; demographic data; intervention fidelity scores for intervention group participants (107 patients and 53 caregivers); qualitative interviews at 4 and 12 months with a sample of 19 patients and 17 caregivers.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Quantitative data: intervention fidelity and number, frequency and duration of intervention sessions received. Qualitative data: experiences and perspectives of intervention participants and caregivers.

RESULTS

Intervention session attendance with facilitators was high. Fidelity scores were indicative of adequate quality of REACH-HF intervention delivery, although indicating scope for improvement in several areas. Intervention effectiveness was contingent on matching the intervention implementation to the concerns, beliefs and goals of participants. Behaviour change was sustained when shared meaning was established. Respondents' comorbidities, socio-economic circumstances and existing networks of support also affected changes in health-related quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

By combining longitudinal mixed methods data, the essential ingredients of complex interventions can be better identified, interrogated and tested. This can maximise the clinical application of research findings and enhance the capacity of multidisciplinary and multisite teams to implement the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN25032672; Pre-results.

Caregiver outcomes of the REACH-HF multicentre randomized controlled trial of home-based rehabilitation for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Caregivers frequently provide support to people living with long-term conditions. However, there is paucity of evidence of interventions that support caregivers in their role. Rehabilitation EnAblement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) is a novel home-based, health-professional-facilitated, self-management programme for patients with heart failure (HF) and their caregivers.

METHODS

Based on the random allocation of individual adult patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left ventricular ejection fraction <45% within the past five years, the caregiver of patients was allocated to receive the REACH-HF intervention over 12 weeks (REACH-HF group) or not (control group). Caregiver outcomes were generic health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), Family Caregiver Quality of Life Scale questionnaire (FamQol), Caregiver Burden Questionnaire HF (CBQ-HF), Caregiver Contribution to Self-care of HF Index questionnaire (CC-SCHFI) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Outcomes were compared between groups at 4, 6 and 12 months follow-up. Twenty caregivers receiving REACH-HF were purposively selected for qualitative interviews at 4 and 12 months.

RESULTS

Compared with controls (44 caregivers), the REACH-HF group (53 caregivers) had a higher mean CC-SCHFI confidence score at 12 months (57.5 vs 62.8, adjusted mean difference: 9.3, 95% confidence interval: 1.8-16.8, p = 0.016). No significant between group differences were seen in other caregiver outcomes. Qualitative interviews showed that most caregivers who received the REACH-HF intervention made positive changes to how they supported the HF patient they were caring for, and perceived that they had increased their confidence in the caregiver role over time.

CONCLUSION

Provision of the REACH-HF intervention for caregivers of HF patients improved their confidence of self-management and was perceived for some to be helpful in supporting their caregiver role.

Standards and core components for cardiovascular disease prevention and rehabilitation

In 2017, the British Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation published its official document detailing standards and core components for cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation. Building on the success of previous editions of this document (published in 2007 and 2012), the 2017 update aims to further emphasise to commissioners, clinicians, politicians and the public the importance of robust, quality indicators of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) service delivery. Otherwise, its overall aim remains consistent with the previous publications—to provide a precedent on which all effective cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programmes are based and a framework for use in assessment of variation in service delivery quality. In this 2017 edition, the previously described seven standards and core components have both been revised to six, with a greater focus on measurable clinical outcomes, audit and certification. The principles within the updated document underpin the six-stage pathway of care for CR, and reflect the extensive evidence base now available within the field. To help improve current services, close collaboration between commissioners and CR providers is advocated, with use of the CR costing tool in financial planning of programmes. The document specifies how quality assurance can be facilitated through local audit, and advocates routine upload of individual-level data to the annual British Heart Foundation National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation, and application for national certification ensuring attainment of a minimum quality standard. Although developed for the UK, these standards and core components may be applicable to other countries.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure

BACKGROUND

Chronic heart failure (HF) is a growing global health challenge. People with HF experience substantial burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous (2014) Cochrane systematic review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission among people with HF, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane Review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with HF with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction HF (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in the hospital/centre-based setting.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of people with heart failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 29 January 2018. We also checked the bibliographies of systematic reviews and two trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared exercise-based CR interventions with six months' or longer follow-up versus a no exercise control that could include usual medical care. The study population comprised adults (> 18 years) with evidence of HF - either HFrEF or HFpEF.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all identified references and rejected those that were clearly ineligible for inclusion in the review. We obtained full papers of potentially relevant trials. Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials, assessed their risk of bias, and performed GRADE analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 trials (5783 participants with HF) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 11 new trials (N = 1040), in addition to the previously identified 33 trials. Although the evidence base includes predominantly patients with HFrEF with New York Heart Association classes II and III receiving centre-based exercise-based CR programmes, a growing body of studies include patients with HFpEF and are undertaken in a home-based setting. All included studies included a no formal exercise training intervention comparator. However, a wide range of comparators were seen across studies that included active intervention (i.e. education, psychological intervention) or usual medical care alone. The overall risk of bias of included trials was low or unclear, and we downgraded results using the GRADE tool for all but one outcome.Cardiac rehabilitation may make little or no difference in all-cause mortality over the short term (≤ one year of follow-up) (27 trials, 28 comparisons (2596 participants): intervention 67/1302 (5.1%) vs control 75/1294 (5.8%); risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.21; low-quality GRADE evidence) but may improve all-cause mortality in the long term (> 12 months follow up) (6 trials/comparisons (2845 participants): intervention 244/1418 (17.2%) vs control 280/1427 (19.6%) events): RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02; high-quality evidence). Researchers provided no data on deaths due to HF. CR probably reduces overall hospital admissions in the short term (up to one year of follow-up) (21 trials, 21 comparisons (2182 participants): (intervention 180/1093 (16.5%) vs control 258/1089 (23.7%); RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.83; moderate-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 14) and may reduce HF-specific hospitalisation (14 trials, 15 comparisons (1114 participants): (intervention 40/562 (7.1%) vs control 61/552 (11.1%) RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84; low-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 25). After CR, a clinically important improvement in short-term disease-specific health-related quality of life may be evident (Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire - 17 trials, 18 comparisons (1995 participants): mean difference (MD) -7.11 points, 95% CI -10.49 to -3.73; low-quality evidence). Pooling across all studies, regardless of the HRQoL measure used, shows there may be clinically important improvement with exercise (26 trials, 29 comparisons (3833 participants); standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.60, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.39; I² = 87%; Chi² = 215.03; low-quality evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent different models of ExCR delivery: centre vs. home-based, exercise dose, exercise only vs. comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone vs aerobic plus resistance programmes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated Cochrane Review provides additional randomised evidence (11 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous version (2014) of this Cochane Review. Compared to no exercise control, CR appears to have no impact on mortality in the short term (< 12 months' follow-up). Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows that CR probably reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and may reduce HF-specific hospital admissions in the short term (up to 12 months). CR may confer a clinically important improvement in health-related quality of life, although we remain uncertain about this because the evidence is of low quality. Future ExCR trials need to continue to consider the recruitment of traditionally less represented HF patient groups including older, female, and HFpEF patients, and alternative CR delivery settings including home- and using technology-based programmes.

Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of home-based and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, exercise-capacity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) on 21 September 2016. We also searched two clinical trials registers as well as previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, including parallel group, cross-over or quasi-randomised designs) that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, gymnasium, sports centre) with home-based programmes in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure or who had undergone revascularisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on pre-defined inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third review author. Two authors independently extracted outcome data and study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE principles and a Summary of findings table was created.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six new studies (624 participants) for this update, which now includes a total of 23 trials that randomised a total of 2890 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Participants had an acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation or heart failure. A number of studies provided insufficient detail to enable assessment of potential risk of bias, in particular, details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequencing and blinding of outcome assessment were poorly reported.No evidence of a difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in clinical primary outcomes up to 12 months of follow up: total mortality (relative risk (RR) = 1.19, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.16; participants = 1505; studies = 11/comparisons = 13; very low quality evidence), exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.13, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.02; participants = 2255; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence), or health-related quality of life up to 24 months (not estimable). Trials were generally of short duration, with only three studies reporting outcomes beyond 12 months (exercise capacity: SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.23; participants = 1074; studies = 3; moderate quality evidence). However, there was evidence of marginally higher levels of programme completion (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08; participants = 2615; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence) by home-based participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update supports previous conclusions that home- and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be similarly effective in improving clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding supports the continued expansion of evidence-based, home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes. The choice of participating in a more traditional and supervised centre-based programme or a home-based programme may reflect local availability and consider the preference of the individual patient. Further data are needed to determine whether the effects of home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation reported in the included short-term trials can be confirmed in the longer term and need to consider adequately powered non-inferiority or equivalence study designs.

Patient education in the management of coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the single most common cause of death globally. However, with falling CHD mortality rates, an increasing number of people live with CHD and may need support to manage their symptoms and improve prognosis. Cardiac rehabilitation is a complex multifaceted intervention which aims to improve the health outcomes of people with CHD. Cardiac rehabilitation consists of three core modalities: education, exercise training and psychological support. This is an update of a Cochrane systematic review previously published in 2011, which aims to investigate the specific impact of the educational component of cardiac rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the effects of patient education delivered as part of cardiac rehabilitation, compared with usual care on mortality, morbidity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and healthcare costs in patients with CHD.2. To explore the potential study level predictors of the effects of patient education in patients with CHD (e.g. individual versus group intervention, timing with respect to index cardiac event).

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches from the previous Cochrane review, by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) in June 2016. Three trials registries, previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies were also searched. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

1. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the primary interventional intent was education delivered as part of cardiac rehabilitation.2. Studies with a minimum of six-months follow-up and published in 1990 or later.3. Adults with a diagnosis of CHD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on the above inclusion criteria. One author extracted study characteristics from the included trials and assessed their risk of bias; a second review author checked data. Two independent reviewers extracted outcome data onto a standardised collection form. For dichotomous variables, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived for each outcome. Heterogeneity amongst included studies was explored qualitatively and quantitatively. Where appropriate and possible, results from included studies were combined for each outcome to give an overall estimate of treatment effect. Given the degree of clinical heterogeneity seen in participant selection, interventions and comparators across studies, we decided it was appropriate to pool studies using random-effects modelling. We planned to undertake subgroup analysis and stratified meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression to examine potential treatment effect modifiers. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the quality of the evidence and the GRADE profiler (GRADEpro GDT) to create summary of findings tables.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included a total of 22 trials which randomised 76,864 people with CHD to an education intervention or a 'no education' comparator. Nine new trials (8215 people) were included for this update. We judged most included studies as low risk of bias across most domains. Educational 'dose' ranged from one 40 minute face-to-face session plus a 15 minute follow-up call, to a four-week residential stay with 11 months of follow-up sessions. Control groups received usual medical care, typically consisting of referral to an outpatient cardiologist, primary care physician, or both.We found evidence of no difference in effect of education-based interventions on total mortality (13 studies, 10,075 participants; 189/5187 (3.6%) versus 222/4888 (4.6%); random effects risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.05; moderate quality evidence). Individual causes of mortality were reported rarely, and we were unable to report separate results for cardiovascular mortality or non-cardiovascular mortality. There was evidence of no difference in effect of education-based interventions on fatal and/or non fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (2 studies, 209 participants; 7/107 (6.5%) versus 12/102 (11.8%); random effects RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.48; very low quality of evidence). However, there was some evidence of a reduction with education in fatal and/or non-fatal cardiovascular events (2 studies, 310 studies; 21/152 (13.8%) versus 61/158 (38.6%); random effects RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.56; low quality evidence). There was evidence of no difference in effect of education on the rate of total revascularisations (3 studies, 456 participants; 5/228 (2.2%) versus 8/228 (3.5%); random effects RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.71; very low quality evidence) or hospitalisations (5 studies, 14,849 participants; 656/10048 (6.5%) versus 381/4801 (7.9%); random effects RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21; very low quality evidence). There was evidence of no difference between groups for all cause withdrawal (17 studies, 10,972 participants; 525/5632 (9.3%) versus 493/5340 (9.2%); random effects RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.22; low quality evidence). Although some health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domain scores were higher with education, there was no consistent evidence of superiority across all domains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no reduction in total mortality, in people who received education delivered as part of cardiac rehabilitation, compared to people in control groups (moderate quality evidence). There were no improvements in fatal or non fatal MI, total revascularisations or hospitalisations, with education. There was some evidence of a reduction in fatal and/or non-fatal cardiovascular events with education, but this was based on only two studies. There was also some evidence to suggest that education-based interventions may improve HRQoL. Our findings are supportive of current national and international clinical guidelines that cardiac rehabilitation for people with CHD should be comprehensive and include educational interventions together with exercise and psychological therapy. Further definitive research into education interventions for people with CHD is needed.

Optimising self-care support for people with heart failure and their caregivers: development of the Rehabilitation Enablement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) intervention using intervention mapping

BACKGROUND

We aimed to establish the support needs of people with heart failure and their caregivers and develop an intervention to improve their health-related quality of life.

METHODS

We used intervention mapping to guide the development of our intervention. We identified "targets for change" by synthesising research evidence and international guidelines and consulting with patients, caregivers and health service providers. We then used behaviour change theory, expert opinion and a taxonomy of behaviour change techniques, to identify barriers to and facilitators of change and to match intervention strategies to each target. A patient and public involvement group helped to identify patient and caregiver needs, refine the intervention objectives and strategies and deliver training to the intervention facilitators. A feasibility study (ISRCTN25032672) involving 23 patients, 12 caregivers and seven trained facilitators at four sites assessed the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and quality of delivery and generated ideas to help refine the intervention.

RESULTS

The Rehabilitation Enablement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) intervention is a comprehensive self-care support programme comprising the "Heart Failure Manual", a choice of two exercise programmes for patients, a "Family and Friends Resource" for caregivers, a "Progress Tracker" tool and a facilitator training course. The main targets for change are engaging in exercise training, monitoring for symptom deterioration, managing stress and anxiety, managing medications and understanding heart failure. Secondary targets include managing low mood and smoking cessation. The intervention is facilitated by trained healthcare professionals with specialist cardiac experience over 12 weeks, via home and telephone contacts. The feasibility study found high levels of satisfaction and engagement with the intervention from facilitators, patients and caregivers. Intervention fidelity analysis and stakeholder feedback suggested that there was room for improvement in several areas, especially in terms of addressing caregivers' needs. The REACH-HF materials were revised accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a comprehensive, evidence-informed, theoretically driven self-care and rehabilitation intervention that is grounded in the needs of patients and caregivers. A randomised controlled trial is underway to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention in people with heart failure and their caregivers.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Rehabilitation Enablement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) facilitated self-care rehabilitation intervention in heart failure patients and caregivers: rationale and protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) trial is part of a research programme designed to develop and evaluate a health professional facilitated, home-based, self-help rehabilitation intervention to improve self-care and health-related quality of life in people with heart failure and their caregivers. The trial will assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention in patients with systolic heart failure and impact on the outcomes of their caregivers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A parallel two group randomised controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation to the REACH-HF intervention plus usual care (intervention group) or usual care alone (control group) in 216 patients with systolic heart failure (ejection fraction <45%) and their caregivers. The intervention comprises a self-help manual delivered by specially trained facilitators over a 12-week period. The primary outcome measure is patients' disease-specific health-related quality of life measured using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire at 12 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes include survival and heart failure related hospitalisation, blood biomarkers, psychological well-being, exercise capacity, physical activity, other measures of quality of life, patient safety and the quality of life, psychological well-being and perceived burden of caregivers at 4, 6 and 12 months' follow-up. A process evaluation will assess fidelity of intervention delivery and explore potential mediators and moderators of changes in health-related quality of life in intervention and control group patients. Qualitative studies will describe patient and caregiver experiences of the intervention. An economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention plus usual care versus usual care alone in patients with systolic heart failure.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is approved by the North West-Lancaster Research Ethics Committee (ref 14/NW/1351). Findings will be disseminated via journals and presentations to publicise the research to clinicians, commissioners and service users.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN86234930; Pre-results.

Exercise-based rehabilitation for heart failure

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses consistently show the positive effect of exercise-based rehabilitation for heart failure (HF) on exercise capacity; however, the direction and magnitude of effects on health-related quality of life, mortality and hospital admissions in HF remain less certain. This is an update of a Cochrane systematic review previously published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of exercise-based rehabilitation on the mortality, hospitalisation admissions, morbidity and health-related quality of life for people with HF. Review inclusion criteria were extended to consider not only HF due to reduced ejection fraction (HFREF or 'systolic HF') but also HF due to preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF or 'diastolic HF').

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches from the previous Cochrane review. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue1, 2013) from January 2008 to January 2013. We also searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and PsycINFO (Ovid) (January 2008 to January 2013). We handsearched Web of Science, bibliographies of systematic reviews and trial registers (Controlled-trials.com and Clinicaltrials.gov).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of exercise-based interventions with six months' follow-up or longer compared with a no exercise control that could include usual medical care. The study population comprised adults over 18 years and were broadened to include individuals with HFPEF in addition to HFREF.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all identified references and rejected those that were clearly ineligible. We obtained full-text papers of potentially relevant trials. One review author independently extracted data from the included trials and assessed their risk of bias; a second review author checked data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 trials with 4740 people with HF predominantly with HFREF and New York Heart Association classes II and III. This latest update identified a further 14 trials. The overall risk of bias of included trials was moderate. There was no difference in pooled mortality between exercise-based rehabilitation versus no exercise control in trials with up to one-year follow-up (25 trials, 1871 participants: risk ratio (RR) 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.27, fixed-effect analysis). However, there was trend towards a reduction in mortality with exercise in trials with more than one year of follow-up (6 trials, 2845 participants: RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02, fixed-effect analysis). Compared with control, exercise training reduced the rate of overall (15 trials, 1328 participants: RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.92, fixed-effect analysis) and HF specific hospitalisation (12 trials, 1036 participants: RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80, fixed-effect analysis). Exercise also resulted in a clinically important improvement superior in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (13 trials, 1270 participants: mean difference: -5.8 points; 95% CI -9.2 to -2.4, random-effects analysis) - a disease specific health-related quality of life measure. However, levels of statistical heterogeneity across studies in this outcome were substantial. Univariate meta-regression analysis showed that these benefits were independent of the participant's age, gender, degree of left ventricular dysfunction, type of cardiac rehabilitation (exercise only vs. comprehensive rehabilitation), mean dose of exercise intervention, length of follow-up, overall risk of bias and trial publication date. Within these included studies, a small body of evidence supported exercise-based rehabilitation for HFPEF (three trials, undefined participant number) and when exclusively delivered in a home-based setting (5 trials, 521 participants). One study reported an additional mean healthcare cost in the training group compared with control of USD3227/person. Two studies indicated exercise-based rehabilitation to be a potentially cost-effective use of resources in terms of gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life-years saved.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated Cochrane review supports the conclusions of the previous version of this review that, compared with no exercise control, exercise-based rehabilitation does not increase or decrease the risk of all-cause mortality in the short term (up to 12-months' follow-up) but reduces the risk of hospital admissions and confers important improvements in health-related quality of life. This update provides further evidence that exercise training may reduce mortality in the longer term and that the benefits of exercise training on appear to be consistent across participant characteristics including age, gender and HF severity. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm the small body of evidence seen in this review for the benefit of exercise in HFPEF and when exercise rehabilitation is exclusively delivered in a home-based setting.

Effect of patient education in the management of coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To assess the effects of patient education on mortality, morbidity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and healthcare costs in people with coronary heart disease (CHD).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Data sources were Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and ongoing trial registries until August 2010. We also checked study references. The study selection was based on design (randomized controlled trials with follow up of at least 6 months, published from 1990 onwards), population (adults with CHD), intervention (patient education stated to be the primary intervention), and comparators (usual care or no educational intervention).

RESULTS

Thirteen studies (68,556 people with CHD) were included. Educational interventions ranged from two visits to a 4-week residential stay with 11 months of reinforcement sessions. Compared to no educational intervention, there was weak evidence that education reduced all-cause mortality (pooled relative risk (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13) and cardiac morbidity outcomes: myocardial infarction (pooled RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.48), revascularization (pooled RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.71), and hospitalization (pooled RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07) at median 18-months follow up. There was evidence to suggest that education can improve HRQoL and decrease healthcare costs by reductions in downstream healthcare utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review had insufficient power to exclude clinically important effects of education on mortality and morbidity. Nevertheless it supports the practice of CHD secondary prevention and rehabilitation programmes including education as an intervention. Further research is needed to determine the most effective and cost-effective format, duration, timing, and methods of education delivery.

Communicating the results of research: how do participants of a cardiac rehabilitation RCT prefer to be informed?

OBJECTIVE

To determine the preferred means by which participants in a study of cardiac rehabilitation wish to be informed of the study's results.

DESIGN

Postal questionnaire survey of participants in a randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Cornwall, southwest England.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients recruited to the Cornwall Heart Attack Rehabilitation Management Study (CHARMS).

METHOD

Participants recruited to CHARMS who were alive 3 years and 9 months after the trial was completed were contacted by letter and invited to return a reply slip with four short questions indicating how they would prefer to be informed about the published results of the study.

RESULTS

In March 2008, 191/230 participants originally recruited to CHARMS were still alive. General practitioners deemed 166/191 (88%) survivors medically appropriate to be contacted through a postal survey, and 154/166 (93%) participants responded to the invitation to participate in the follow-up survey. 86% (143/166) of participants indicated that they wished to be informed about the results: 115 (80%) of these elected to receive information by letter and 25 (18%) of these preferred to attend a meeting. Men older than 65 years predominated in this latter group. Women respondents preferred to receive the study results by letter; none preferred communication by email or the web.

CONCLUSION

Survivors of acute myocardial infarction who participated in a RCT of cardiac rehabilitation wanted to receive a summary of the aggregate study results. Participants had preferences regarding how they would wish to be informed about the results of the study. Most participants preferred to be informed by letter or email, but some preferred the interaction of a group or a meeting.

Cardiac rehabilitation in the United Kingdom

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a cost-effective, life-enhancing and life-saving treatment for patients recovering from cardiac illness--from myocardial infarction, revascularisation, angina, heart failure, etc. Its main aims are to help the patient to recover as quickly and completely as possible and then to reduce to a minimum the chance of recurrence of the cardiac illness--it should be an integral step in the management of the patient's condition. Despite the inclusion of CR in the National Service Framework for coronary heart disease only a minority of cardiac patients join CR programmes. Suggestions are made for increasing the uptake.

Recent developments in secondary prevention and cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction

Primary care has a key role in improving the health of patients who have had a myocardial infarction

Influence of alpha-thalassemia trait on the prevalence and severity of anemia in pregnancy among women in Kuwait

Alpha-thalassemia is very common in the Kuwaiti population, but its influence on anemia of pregnancy has not been previously investigated. We have screened a group of 59 anemic (Hb < 11 g/dl) pregnant women for the alpha-thal-2 (-alpha-3.7 kb) deletion which is the commonest alpha-thal allele in this community, using a polymerase chain reaction method. A control group of 35 nonanemic (Hb > or = 11 g/dl) pregnant women was studied for comparison. All the women were in the second or third trimester of pregnancy. Among the 94 women in both groups, 69 (73.4%) had a normal complement of alpha-globin genes (alphaalpha/alphaalpha), 18 (19.1%) were heterozygotes (-alpha/alphaalpha) and 7 (7.4%) were homozygotes (-alpha/-alpha) giving an allele frequency of 17.0%. Among the anemic group, there were 44 (74.6%) individuals with a normal genotype, 9 (15.3%) heterozygotes and 6 (10.2%) homozygotes. In the nonanemic group, the corresponding prevalence figures were 25 (71.4%), 9 (25.7%) and 1 (2.9%), respectively. The difference between these distributions was statistically significant (chi2 = 37.5, p < 0.0001). However, the mean Hb values were similar in heterozygotes, homozygotes and normal individuals. We, therefore, conclude that while the alpha-thal trait affects the prevalence of anemia among pregnant Kuwaiti women, it does not affect its severity.

Gene deletion patterns in spinal muscular atrophy patients with different clinical phenotypes

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is an autosomal recessive disorder characterized by degeneration of lower motor neurons. We have assayed deletions in two candidate genes, the survival motor neuron (SMN) and neuronal apoptosis inhibitory protein (NAIP) genes, in 108 samples, of which 46 were from SMA patients, and 62 were from unaffected subjects. The SMA patients included 3 from Bahrain, 9 from South Africa, 2 from India, 5 from Oman, 1 from Saudi Arabia, and 26 from Kuwait. SMN gene exons 7 and 8 were deleted in all type I SMA patients. NAIP gene exons 5 and 6 were deleted in 22 of 23 type I SMA patients. SMN gene exon 7 was deleted in all type II SMA patients while exon 8 was deleted in 19 of 21 type II patients. In 1 type II SMA patient, both centromeric and telomeric copies of SMN exon 8 were deleted. NAIP gene exons 5 and 6 were deleted in only 1 type II SMA patient. In 1 of the 2 type III SMA patients, SMN gene exons 7 and 8 were deleted with no deletion in the NAIP gene, while in the second patient, deletions were detected in both SMN and NAIP genes. None of the 62 unaffected subjects had deletions in either the SMN or NAIP gene. The incidence of biallelic polymorphism in SMN gene exon 7 (BsmAI) was found to be similar (97%) to that (98%) reported in a Spanish population but was significantly different from that reported from Taiwan (0%). The incidence of a second polymorphism in SMN gene exon 8 (presence of the sequence ATGGCCT) was markedly different in our population (97%) and those reported from Spain (50%) and Taiwan (0%).