European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2018
Cardiac rehabilitation in patients with acute coronary syndrome with primary percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with improved 10-year survival.
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.
Sunamura Madoka, Ter Hoeve Nienke, van den Berg-Emons Rita J G, Boersma Eric, van Domburg Ron T, Geleijnse Marcel L
Аннотация
AIMS: We aimed to assess the effects of a multidisciplinary cardiac rehabilitation (CR) program on survival after treatment with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
METHODS AND RESULTS: Using propensity matching analysis, a total of 1159 patients undergoing CR were 1:1 matched with ACS patients who did not undergo CR and survived at least 60 days. The Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariate Cox regression analysis were applied to study differences in survival. During follow-up, a total of 335 (14.5%) patients had died. Cumulative mortality rates at 5 and 10 years were 6.4% and 14.7% after CR and 10.4% and 23.5% in the no CR group (P < 0.001). Cardiac rehabilitation patients had 39% lower mortality than non-CR controls [10-year mortality 14.7% vs. 23.5%; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.81]. A total of 915 (78.9%) patients completed CR and had 46% lower mortality than those who did not complete CR (10-year mortality 13.6% vs. 18.9%; adjusted HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42-0.70).
CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent pPCI for ACS, with a CR program had lower mortality than their non-CR counterparts. Mortality was particularly low in patients who completed the program. In conclusion, CR is still beneficial in terms of survival.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Using propensity matching analysis, a total of 1159 patients undergoing CR were 1:1 matched with ACS patients who did not undergo CR and survived at least 60 days. The Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariate Cox regression analysis were applied to study differences in survival. During follow-up, a total of 335 (14.5%) patients had died. Cumulative mortality rates at 5 and 10 years were 6.4% and 14.7% after CR and 10.4% and 23.5% in the no CR group (P < 0.001). Cardiac rehabilitation patients had 39% lower mortality than non-CR controls [10-year mortality 14.7% vs. 23.5%; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.81]. A total of 915 (78.9%) patients completed CR and had 46% lower mortality than those who did not complete CR (10-year mortality 13.6% vs. 18.9%; adjusted HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42-0.70).
CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent pPCI for ACS, with a CR program had lower mortality than their non-CR counterparts. Mortality was particularly low in patients who completed the program. In conclusion, CR is still beneficial in terms of survival.