-
1.
Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation.
Taylor, RS, Dalal, H, Jolly, K, Zawada, A, Dean, SG, Cowie, A, Norton, RJ
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2015;(8):CD007130
Abstract
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 originally published in 2009. OBJECTIVES To compare the effect of home-based and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease. SEARCH METHODS To update searches from the previous Cochrane review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2014), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to October week 1 2014), EMBASE (Ovid, 1980 to 2014 week 41), PsycINFO (Ovid, 1806 to October week 2 2014), and CINAHL (EBSCO, to October 2014). We checked reference lists of included trials and recent systematic reviews. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, gymnasium, sports centre) with home-based programmes in adults with myocardial infarction (MI), angina, heart failure or who had undergone revascularisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the identified trials and data were extracted by a single author and checked by a second. Authors were contacted where possible to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS Seventeen trials included a total of 2172 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation following an acute MI or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This update included an additional five trials on 345 patients with heart failure. Authors of a number of included trials failed to give sufficient detail to assess their potential risk of bias, and details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequence were particularly poorly reported. In the main, no difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in outcomes up to 12 months of follow up: mortality (relative risk (RR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.47, P = 0.46, fixed-effect), cardiac events (data not poolable), exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.10, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.08, P = 0.29, random-effects), modifiable risk factors (total cholesterol: mean difference (MD) = 0.07 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.11, P = 0.47, random-effects; low density lipoprotein cholesterol: MD = -0.06 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.15, P = 0.55, random-effects; systolic blood pressure: mean difference (MD) = 0.19 mmHg, 95% CI -3.37 to 3.75, P = 0.92, random-effects; proportion of smokers at follow up (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.21, P = 0.83, fixed-effect), or health-related quality of life (not poolable). Small outcome differences in favour of centre-based participants were seen in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD = -0.07 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.03, P = 0.001, fixed-effect), and triglycerides (MD = -0.18 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.02, P = 0.03, fixed-effect, diastolic blood pressure (MD = -1.86 mmHg; 95% CI -0.76 to -2.95, P = 0.0009, fixed-effect). In contrast, in home-based participants, there was evidence of a marginally higher levels of programme completion (RR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07, P = 0.009, fixed-effect) and adherence to the programme (not poolable). No consistent difference was seen in healthcare costs between the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This updated review supports the conclusions of the previous version of this review that home- and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be equally effective for improving the clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in low risk patients after MI or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding, together with the absence of evidence of important differences in healthcare costs between the two approaches, 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 should reflect the preference of the individual patient. Further data are needed to determine whether the effects of home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation reported in these short-term trials can be confirmed in the longer term. A number of studies failed to give sufficient detail to assess their risk of bias.
-
2.
Clinical outcomes with bioabsorbable polymer- versus durable polymer-based drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis.
Palmerini, T, Biondi-Zoccai, G, Della Riva, D, Mariani, A, Sabaté, M, Smits, PC, Kaiser, C, D'Ascenzo, F, Frati, G, Mancone, M, et al
Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2014;(4):299-307
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study sought to investigate the relative safety and efficacy of bioabsorbable polymer (BP)-based biolimus-eluting stents (BES) versus durable-polymer (DP)-drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) by means of a network meta-analysis. BACKGROUND Studies have suggested that BP-BES might reduce the risk of stent thrombosis (ST) and late adverse outcomes compared with first-generation DES. However, the relative safety and efficacy of BP-BES versus newer-generation DES coated with more biocompatible DP have not been investigated in depth. METHODS Randomized controlled trials comparing BP-BES versus currently U.S.-approved DES or BMS were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Information on study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample characteristics, and clinical outcomes was extracted. RESULTS Data from 89 trials including 85,490 patients were analyzed. At 1-year follow-up, BP-BES were associated with lower rates of cardiac death/myocardial infarction (MI), MI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) than BMS and lower rates of TVR than fast-release zotarolimus-eluting stents. The BP-BES had similar rates of cardiac death/MI, MI, and TVR compared with other second-generation DP-DES but higher rates of 1-year ST than cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES). The BP-BES were associated with improved late outcomes compared with BMS and paclitaxel-eluting stents, considering the latest follow-up data available, with nonsignificantly different outcomes compared with other DP-DES although higher rates of definite ST compared with CoCr-EES. CONCLUSIONS In this large-scale network meta-analysis, BP-BES were associated with superior clinical outcomes compared with BMS and first-generation DES and similar rates of cardiac death/MI, MI, and TVR compared with second-generation DP-DES but higher rates of definite ST than CoCr-EES.
-
3.
Multi-Link Vision stent vs. first-generation drug-eluting stents: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Testa, L, Latini, RA, Pizzocri, S, Lanotte, S, Agnifili, M, Laudisa, ML, Brambilla, N, Bedogni, F
QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians. 2011;(12):1025-34
Abstract
BACKGROUND Since its introduction, the cobalt chromium alloy MULTI-LINK VISION stent (MLV) has been extensively investigated thus leading to the largest amount of data so far available for a bare metal stent. Aim and METHODS Systematic review and meta-analysis (according to Cochrane collaboration guidelines) aiming at summarizing the real world safety and efficacy of MLV stent. Endpoints of interest were: major adverse events [(MAE) combination of overall death and non-fatal myocardial infarction, MI], and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Rate of stent thrombosis was also assessed. RESULTS Eleven studies finally retrieved totalling 5539 patients [7 study registries, 4243 patients and 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MLV vs. first generation of drug-eluting stent (DES) (paclitaxel or sirolimus eluting), (RCTs) 1296 patients]. Across study registries, at a mean follow-up of 11.1 months, MLV was associated with a 5.3% risk of MAE, 3% of death, 2.3% of MI and a 9% of TVR. Risk of ST was 0.5%. Compared to first generation of DES in RCTs, at a mean follow-up of 10.5 months, MLV achieved similar results in terms of MAE, death and MI. On the other hand, MLV was associated with a double risk of TVR [OR 2.01 (1.34-3.01), P < 0.001, number needed to treat 18 (13-40)]. Overall, in stent late loss with MLV was 0.81 mm (±0.51), while the in segment late loss was 0.61 mm (±0.5). Risk of stent thrombosis was equivalent. Of note, performance of MLV in terms of safety, efficacy and risk of repeat revascularization was quite consistent across all the published studies, despite inherent differences in study design, clinical setting, complexity of the lesions and ethnicity. CONCLUSION Compared to first-generation DES, MLV showed substantial equivalence with respect to hard clinical endpoints. Data are consistent in study registries and RCTs meaning that the overall performance of MLV is quite predictable and reproducible into the wide spectrum of clinical settings.
-
4.
Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation.
Taylor, RS, Dalal, H, Jolly, K, Moxham, T, Zawada, A
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2010;(1):CD007130
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The burden of cardiovascular disease world-wide is one of great concern to patients and health care agencies alike. Traditionally centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) 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. OBJECTIVES To determine the effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes compared with supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health-related quality of life and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with coronary heart disease. SEARCH STRATEGY We updated the search of a previous review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2007, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from 2001 to January 2008. We checked reference lists and sought advice from experts. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) 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 Studies were selected independently by two reviewers, and data extracted by a single reviewer and checked by a second one. Authors were contacted where possible to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS Twelve studies (1,938 participants) met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies recruited a lower risk patient following an acute myocardial infarction (MI) and revascularisation. There was no difference in outcomes of home- versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in mortality risk ratio (RR) was1.31 (95% confidence interval (C) 0.65 to 2.66), cardiac events, exercise capacity standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.13), as well as in modifiable risk factors (systolic blood pressure; diastolic blood pressure; total cholesterol; HDL-cholesterol; LDL-cholesterol) or proportion of smokers at follow up or health-related quality of life. There was no consistent difference in the healthcare costs of the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation appear to be equally effective in improving the clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in acute MI and revascularisation patients. This finding, together with an absence of evidence of difference in healthcare costs between the two approaches, would support the extension of home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes such as the Heart Manual to give patients a choice in line with their preferences, which may have an impact on uptake of cardiac rehabilitation in the individual case.
-
5.
Comparison by meta-analysis of drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents for saphenous vein graft intervention.
Lee, MS, Yang, T, Kandzari, DE, Tobis, JM, Liao, H, Mahmud, E
The American journal of cardiology. 2010;(8):1076-82
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
This meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents (DESs) compared to bare metal stents (BMSs) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) interventions. DESs decrease the risk of target vessel revascularization in native coronary arteries compared to BMSs. The ideal treatment strategy in patients with SVG disease is unknown. A search of the published reports was conducted to identify studies that compared DESs and BMSs in SVG intervention with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. A total of 19 studies (2 randomized trials and 17 registries), including 3,420 patients who had undergone SVG intervention (DESs, n = 1,489 and BMS, n = 1,931), met the selection criteria. The mean length of follow-up was 20 + or - 12 months. Using the fixed effect model, target vessel revascularization was less frequently performed in patients who had undergone SVG intervention with a DES than with a BMS (odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49 to 0.72). The incidence of myocardial infarction was lower in patients with a DES than in those with a BMS (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99). No differences were found in the risk of death (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.02) or stent thrombosis (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.11) between the 2 groups. In conclusion, these findings support the use of DESs in SVG lesions.