Abstract

ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), given previous reviews have included scant trials from these settings and the great need there. MethodsSix electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and APA PsycINFO) were searched from inception-May 2020. Randomised controlled CR (i.e., at least initial assessment and structured exercise; any setting; some Phase II) trials with any clinical outcomes (e.g., mortality and morbidity, functional capacity, risk factor control and psychosocial well-being) or cost, with usual care (UC) control or active comparison (AC), in acute coronary syndrome with or without revascularization or heart failure patients in LMICs were included. With regard to data extraction and data synthesis, two reviewers independently vetted identified citations and extracted data from included trials; Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane’s tool. Certainty of evidence was ascertained based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. A random-effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CI). ResultsTwenty-six trials (6380 participants; 16.9% female; median follow-up = 3 months) were included. CR meaningfully improved functional capacity (VO2peak vs UC: 5 trials; mean difference [MD] = 3.13 ml/kg/min, 95% CI = 2.61 to 3.65; I2 = 9.0%); moderate-quality evidence), systolic blood pressure (vs UC: MD = -5.29 mmHg, 95% CI = -8.12 to -2.46; I2 = 45%; low-quality evidence), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (vs UC: MD = -16.55 mg/dl, 95% CI = -29.97 to -3.14; I2 = 74%; very low-quality evidence), body mass index (vs AC: MD = -0.84 kg/m2, 95% CI = -1.61 to −0.07; moderate-quality evidence; I2 = 0%), and quality of life (QoL; vs UC; SF-12/36 physical: MD = 6.05, 95% CI = 1.77 to 10.34; I2 = 93%, low-quality evidence; mental: MD = 5.38, 95% CI = 1.13 to 9.63; I2 = 84%; low-quality evidence), among others. There were no evidence of effects on mortality or morbidity. Qualitative analyses revealed CR was associated with lower percutaneous coronary intervention, myocardial infarction, better cardiovascular function, and biomarkers, as well as return to life roles; there were other non-significant effects. Two studies reported low cost of home-based CR. ConclusionsLow to moderate-certainty evidence establishes CR as delivered in LMICs improves functional capacity, risk factor control and QoL. While more high-quality research is needed, we must augment access to CR in these settings. Systematic review registrationPROSPERO (CRD42020185296).

Highlights

  • Cochrane meta-analyses of trials have established that participation in Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) results in ~20% reductions in CVD mortality and morbidity,such as costly revascularizations and re-hospitalizations,6 as well as clinically-meaningful gains in quality of life (QoL),6 7 all while being cost-effective

  • The objectives of this systematic review were to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CR in Low and middle-income countries (LMICs) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and heart failure (HF) patients. This prospectively-registered review was undertaken in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions,18 and was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement,19 and addresses the items outlined in the “A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews” (AMSTAR) checklist

  • Some pre-specified outcomes from Dorje‟s trial,29 including mortality and morbidity, are currently in preparation, and we only report on available outcomes

Read more

Summary

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in low- and middleincome countries (LMICs), given previous reviews have included scant trials from these settings and the great need there. Randomized controlled CR (i.e., at least initial assessment and structured exercise; any setting; some Phase II) trials with any clinical outcomes (e.g., mortality and morbidity, functional capacity, risk factor control and psychosocial well-being) or cost, with usual care (UC) control or active comparison (AC), in acute coronary syndrome with or without revascularization or heart failure patients in LMICs were included. CR meaningfully improved functional capacity (VO2peak vs UC: 5 trials; mean difference [MD]=3.13 ml/kg/min, 95% CI=2.61-3.65; I2=9.0%); moderate-quality evidence), Journal Pre-proof systolic blood pressure (vs UC: MD=-5.29 mmHg, 95% CI=-8.12- -2.46; I2=45%; lowquality evidence), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (vs UC: MD=-16.55 mg/dl, 95% CI=29.97- -3.14; I2=74%; very low-quality evidence), body mass index (vs AC: MD=-0.84 kg/m2, 95% CI=-1.61 to -0.07; moderate-quality evidence; I2=0%), and quality of life ( QoL; vs UC; SF-12/36 physical: MD=6.05, 95% CI=1.77-10.34; I2=93%, low-quality evidence; mental: MD=5.38, 95% CI=1.13-9.63; I2=84%; low-quality evidence), among others.

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call