Journal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation and prevention · 2022
The Association Between a Second Course of Cardiac Rehabilitation and Cardiovascular Outcomes Following Repeat Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Events.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Wenliang, Supervia Marta, Dun Yaoshan, Lennon Ryan J, Ding Rongjing, Sandhu Gurpreet, Tilbury Thomas, Squires Ray W, Vardar Ufuk, Tabatabaei Niloufar, Thomas Randal J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Survivors of coronary artery disease (CAD) events are at risk for repeat events. Although evidence supports cardiac rehabilitation (CR) after an initial CAD event, it is unclear whether a repeat course of CR (CR × 2) is beneficial after a recurrent CAD event. The purpose of this study was to determine the association of CR × 2 with clinical outcomes in persons undergoing repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
METHODS: We assessed the prevalence of CR × 2 and its impact on cardiovascular outcomes in individuals who experienced a repeat PCI at the Mayo Clinic hospitals between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2013. Landmark analyses were used to calculate unadjusted and propensity score adjusted mortality rates and cardiovascular (CV) events rates for patients who underwent CR × 2 compared with those who did not.
RESULTS: Among 240 individuals who had a repeat PCI and who had participated in CR after their first PCI, 97 (40%) participated in CR × 2. Outcomes were assessed for a mean follow-up time of 7.8 yr (IQR 7.1-9.0 yr). Propensity score-based inverse probability weighting analysis revealed that CR × 2 was associated with significantly lower target lesion revascularization (HR = 0.47: 95% CI, 0.26-0.86; P = .014), lower combined end point of CV death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (HR = 0.57: 95% CI, 0.36-0.89; P = .014), and lower CV hospitalization (HR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.84; P = .003).
CONCLUSION: A second course of CR following repeat PCI is associated with a lower risk of adverse clinical outcomes. These findings support current policies that allow for repeat courses of CR following recurrent CV events.
METHODS: We assessed the prevalence of CR × 2 and its impact on cardiovascular outcomes in individuals who experienced a repeat PCI at the Mayo Clinic hospitals between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2013. Landmark analyses were used to calculate unadjusted and propensity score adjusted mortality rates and cardiovascular (CV) events rates for patients who underwent CR × 2 compared with those who did not.
RESULTS: Among 240 individuals who had a repeat PCI and who had participated in CR after their first PCI, 97 (40%) participated in CR × 2. Outcomes were assessed for a mean follow-up time of 7.8 yr (IQR 7.1-9.0 yr). Propensity score-based inverse probability weighting analysis revealed that CR × 2 was associated with significantly lower target lesion revascularization (HR = 0.47: 95% CI, 0.26-0.86; P = .014), lower combined end point of CV death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (HR = 0.57: 95% CI, 0.36-0.89; P = .014), and lower CV hospitalization (HR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.84; P = .003).
CONCLUSION: A second course of CR following repeat PCI is associated with a lower risk of adverse clinical outcomes. These findings support current policies that allow for repeat courses of CR following recurrent CV events.