Search

Introduction: We conducted a systematic review to assess the effect of exercise training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF)., Methods: A number of electronic databases were searched up to November 2011 to identify comparative studies of exercise training in HFPEF. Where possible, outcome data from included studies were pooled using meta-analysis., Results: Three randomised controlled trials, one non-randomised controlled trial and one pre-post study were included, for a total of 228 individuals. The combined duration of exercise programmes and follow-up ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. No deaths, hospital admissions or serious adverse events were observed during or immediately following exercise training. Compared to control, the change in exercise capacity at follow-up was higher with exercise training (between group mean difference: 3.0 ml/kg/min, 95% CI: 2.4 to 2.6). In the four studies, that reported the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire, there was evidence of a larger gain in health-related quality of life with exercise training (7.3 units, 3.3 to 11.4). The largest study showed some evidence of improvement in the E/E' ratio with exercise training, but this was not confirmed in the other studies (overall -0.9, -3.8 to 2.0); E/A ratios were not changed., Conclusions: Exercise training for patients with HFPEF confers benefit in terms of enhancements in exercise capacity and health-related quality of life and appears to be safe. The impact on diastolic function remains unclear. Further trials should provide data on long term effects, prognostic relevance and cost-effectiveness., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Participation in cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction is sub-optimal. Offering home-based rehabilitation may improve uptake. We report the first randomized study of cardiac rehabilitation to include patient preference., Aim: To compare the clinical effectiveness of a home-based rehabilitation with hospital-based rehabilitation after myocardial infarction and to determine whether patient choice affects clinical outcomes., Design: Pragmatic randomized controlled trial with patient preference arms., Setting: Rural South West England., Methods: Patients admitted with uncomplicated myocardial infarction were offered hospital-based rehabilitation classes over 8-10 weeks or a self-help package of six weeks' duration (the Heart Manual) supported by a nurse. Primary outcomes at 9 months were mean depression and anxiety scores on the Hospital Anxiety Depression scale, quality of life after myocardial infarction (MacNew) score and serum total cholesterol., Results: Of the 230 patients who agreed to participate, 104 (45%) consented to randomization and 126 (55%) chose their rehabilitation programme. Nine month follow-up data were available for 84/104 (81%) randomized and 100/126 (79%) preference patients. At follow-up no difference was seen in the change in mean depression scores between the randomized home and hospital-based groups (mean difference: 0; 95% confidence interval, -1.12 to 1.12) nor mean anxiety score (-0.07; -1.42 to 1.28), mean global MacNew score (0.14; -0.35 to 0.62) and mean total cholesterol levels (-0.18; -0.62 to 0.27). Neither were there any significant differences in outcomes between the preference groups., Conclusions: Home-based cardiac rehabilitation with the Heart Manual was as effective as hospital-based rehabilitation for patients after myocardial infarction. Choosing a rehabilitation programme did not significantly affect clinical outcomes.

Background: Home-based cardiac rehabilitation offers an alternative to traditional, hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation., Aim: To compare the cost effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation and hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation., Methods: 104 patients with an uncomplicated acute myocardial infarction and without major comorbidity were randomized to receive home-based rehabilitation (n=60) i.e. nurse facilitated, self-help package of 6 weeks' duration (the Heart Manual) or hospital-based rehabilitation for 8-10 weeks (n=44). Complete economic data were available in 80 patients (48 who received home-based rehabilitation and 32 who received hospital-based rehabilitation). Healthcare costs, patient costs, and quality of life (EQ-5D4.13) were assessed over the 9 months of the study., Results: The cost of running the home-based rehabilitation programme was slightly lower than that of the hospital-based programme (mean (95% confidence interval) difference - 30 pounds sterling (- 45 pounds sterling to - 12 pounds sterling) [-44 euro, -67 euro to -18 euro] per patient. The cost difference was largely the result of reduced personnel costs. Over the 9 months of the study, no significant difference was seen between the two groups in overall healthcare costs (78 pounds sterling, - 1102 pounds sterling to 1191 pounds sterling [-115 euro, -1631 euro to -1763 euro] per patient) or quality adjusted life-years (-0.06 (-0.15 to 0.02)). The lack of significant difference between home-based rehabilitation and hospital-based rehabilitation did not alter when different costs and different methods of analysis were used., Conclusions: The health gain and total healthcare costs of the present hospital-based and home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes for patients after myocardial infarction appear to be similar. These initial results require affirmation by further economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation in different settings.