Search

Exercise tolerance and cardiac output have a major impact on the quality of life (QOL) of patients experiencing heart failure (HF). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation can significantly improve not only exercise tolerance but also peak oxygen uptake ((Equation is included in full-text article.)peak), and the QOL in patients with HF. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the beneficial effects of home-based cardiac rehabilitation on the quality of medical care in patients with chronic HF.This study was a randomized prospective trial. HF patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of less than 50% were included in this study. We randomly assigned patients to the control group (n = 18) and the interventional group (n = 19). Within the interventional group, we arranged individualized rehabilitation programs, including home-based cardiac rehabilitation, diet education, and management of daily activity over a 3-month period. Information such as general data, laboratory data, Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test (CPET) results, Six-minute Walk Test (6MWT) results, and the scores for the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) before and after the intervention, was collected from all patients in this study.Patients enrolled in the home-based cardiac rehabilitation programs displayed statistically significant improvement in (Equation is included in full-text article.)peak (18.2 ± 4.1 vs 20.9 ± 6.6 mL/kg/min, P = .02), maximal 6-Minute Walking Distance (6MWD) (421 ± 90 vs 462 ± 74 m, P = .03), anaerobic threshold (12.4 ± 2.5 vs 13.4 ± 2.6 mL/kg/min, P = .005), and QOL. In summary, patients receiving home-based cardiac rehabilitation experienced a 14.2% increase in (Equation is included in full-text article.)peak, a 37% increase in QOL score, and an improvement of 41 m on the 6MWD test. The 90-day readmission rate for patients reduced to 5% from 14% after receiving cardiac rehabilitation.Home-based cardiac rehabilitation offered the most improved results in functional capacity, QOL, and a reduced the rate of readmission within 90 days.

Both angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) have protective effects against atrial fibrillation (AF). The differences between ARB and ACEI in their effects on the primary prevention of AF remain unclear. This study compared ARB and ACEI in combined antihypertensive medications for reducing the risk of AF in patients with hypertension, and determined which was better for AF prevention in a nationwide cohort study. Patients aged ≥55 years and with a history of hypertension were identified from Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Medical records of 25,075 patients were obtained, and included 6205 who used ARB, 8034 who used ACEI, and 10,836 nonusers (no ARB or ACEI) in their antihypertensive regimen. Cox regression models were applied to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for new-onset AF. During an average of 7.7 years’ follow-up, 1619 patients developed new-onset AF. Both ARB (adjusted HR: 0.51, 95% CI 0.44–0.58, P