Suppr超能文献

心肌梗死后门诊与住院心脏康复的接受情况及有效性:一项全国性分析。

Uptake and Effectiveness of Outpatient vs. Residential Cardiac Rehabilitation After Myocardial Infarction: A Nationwide Analysis.

作者信息

Jug Borut, Fras Zlatko, Furlan Tjaša, Novaković Marko, Tasič Jerneja, Lainščak Mitja, Farkaš Jerneja, Gavrić Dalibor, Ograjenšek Irena, Bonča Petra Došenović

机构信息

Centre for Preventive Cardiology, Department of Vascular Medicine, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.

出版信息

Glob Heart. 2025 Sep 12;20(1):80. doi: 10.5334/gh.1470. eCollection 2025.

Abstract

AIMS

To estimate the participation in, and the comparative effectiveness of, short-term residential and comprehensive outpatient cardiac rehabilitation (CR), after the latter was introduced in Slovenia by establishing dedicated regional CR centers.

METHODS

We extracted and analyzed data on all patients hospitalized for myocardial infarction in Slovenia ( = 15,639), focusing on CR participation - either comprehensive outpatient (introduced in 2017) or short-term residential (available throughout the study period 2015-2021). Impact on nation-wide CR participation rates was assessed by interrupted time series analysis; impact on patient-level outcomes (all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations) was assessed using Kaplan Meier estimators and 'doubly robust' Cox regression with propensity score-derived inverse probability of treatment weighting.

RESULTS

Of the 11,815 eligible patients (event-free after 180-day landmark), 3819 (32.3%) attended CR. Nation-wide CR participation rates increased both in level (9.7%, 95% CI 6.3-3.1) and in trend (0.41% per month, 95% CI 0.22-0.60) after outpatient CR was introduced in 2017. After propensity score-based adjustment, participation in either CR was associated with lower event rates (12.8%, 17.2%, and 21.0% at 3-year follow-up for outpatient, residential, and no CR, respectively; < 0.001). Risk reductions were significant for composite outcomes (outpatient: HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47-0.70; residential: HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.93) and all-cause mortality (outpatient: HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38-0.83; residential: HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45-0.77), whereas the risk reduction for cardiovascular hospitalizations was only significant for outpatient CR (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48-0.74). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per life-year gained was €6421 and €7381 for outpatient and residential CR, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Participation in either CR improves outcomes after myocardial infarction, but comprehensive outpatient CR conveys superior risk reductions, primarily through reduced cardiovascular hospitalizations.

LAY SUMMARY

Our study highlights the importance of expanding cardiac rehabilitation services (by setting up dedicated regional comprehensive outpatient centers) and provides new evidence on improved outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction, who undergo cardiac rehabilitation. While previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy and effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation, ours is the first to compare two distinctive cardiac rehabilitation modalities - comprehensive outpatient (introduced in 2017) and short-term residential (available throughout the study period 2015-2021).In our nationally representative population of patients after myocardial infarction ( = 15,639), participation in cardiac rehabilitation increased both in level (by ~10%) and in trend (by ~0.4% per month) after dedicated cardiac rehabilitation centers were established. Participation in either comprehensive outpatient or short-term residential cardiac rehabilitation was associated with a significant 42% and 21% risk reduction in the primary outcome (death or cardiovascular hospitalization) respectively, after propensity score-based adjustment. Mortality was also reduced (by 46% and 41%, respectively), whereas the risk reduction for hospitalization was only significant in patients undergoing comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation (by 60%).Participation in either cardiac rehabilitation program improves cardiovascular outcomes, but comprehensive outpatient cardiac rehabilitation yields superior risk reductions, primarily through reduced cardiovascular hospitalizations.

KEY LEARNING POINTS

Cardiac rehabilitation improves outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease.Despite its established efficacy, cardiac rehabilitation participation remains suboptimal. Improving access to cardiac rehabilitation through establishing dedicated regional centers may improve participation, but also crowd-out existing options of cardiac rehabilitation.The comparative effectiveness of different cardiac rehabilitation modalities (e.g., comprehensive outpatient versus short-term residential cardiac rehabilitation) remains understudied. Expanding cardiac rehabilitation services (by setting up dedicated regional comprehensive outpatient centers) significantly improves participation in cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction.Participation in either comprehensive outpatient or short-term residential cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction is associated with improved outcomes (i.e., a significant 42% and 21% risk reduction in death or cardiovascular hospitalization, respectively).Comprehensive outpatient cardiac rehabilitation yields superior risk reductions primarily through reduced cardiovascular hospitalizations.

摘要

目的

在斯洛文尼亚通过设立专门的区域心脏康复(CR)中心引入综合门诊心脏康复后,评估短期住院心脏康复和综合门诊心脏康复的参与情况及其比较效果。

方法

我们提取并分析了斯洛文尼亚所有因心肌梗死住院患者(n = 15,639)的数据,重点关注心脏康复的参与情况——综合门诊心脏康复(2017年引入)或短期住院心脏康复(在整个研究期间2015 - 2021年都有)。通过中断时间序列分析评估对全国心脏康复参与率的影响;使用Kaplan Meier估计器和倾向得分衍生的治疗加权逆概率的“双重稳健”Cox回归评估对患者层面结局(全因死亡率和心血管住院)的影响。

结果

在11,815名符合条件的患者(在180天标志性时间后无事件发生)中,3819名(32.3%)参加了心脏康复。2017年引入门诊心脏康复后,全国心脏康复参与率在水平上(9.7%,95%置信区间6.3 - 3.1)和趋势上(每月0.41%,95%置信区间0.22 - 0.60)均有所增加。在基于倾向得分进行调整后,参加任何一种心脏康复都与较低的事件发生率相关(在3年随访时,门诊、住院和未参加心脏康复的患者分别为12.8%、17.2%和21.0%;P < 0.001)。复合结局(门诊:HR 0.58,95%置信区间0.47 - 0.70;住院:HR 0.79,95%置信区间0.68 - 0.93)和全因死亡率(门诊:HR 0.56,95%置信区间0.38 - 0.83;住院:HR 0.59,95%置信区间0.45 - 0.77)的风险降低具有统计学意义,而心血管住院的风险降低仅在门诊心脏康复中具有统计学意义(HR 0.60,95%置信区间0.48 - 0.74)。每获得一个生命年的增量成本效益比,门诊心脏康复和住院心脏康复分别为6421欧元和7381欧元。

结论

参加任何一种心脏康复都能改善心肌梗死后的结局,但综合门诊心脏康复能带来更好的风险降低效果,主要是通过减少心血管住院。

简要概述

我们的研究强调了扩大心脏康复服务(通过设立专门的区域综合门诊中心)的重要性,并为接受心脏康复的心肌梗死后患者改善结局提供了新证据。虽然先前的研究已经证明了心脏康复的有效性,但我们的研究是首次比较两种不同的心脏康复模式——综合门诊心脏康复(2017年引入)和短期住院心脏康复(在整个研究期间2015 - 2021年都有)。在我们具有全国代表性的心肌梗死后患者群体(n = 15,639)中,设立专门的心脏康复中心后,心脏康复的参与率在水平上(提高约10%)和趋势上(每月提高约0.4%)均有所增加。在基于倾向得分进行调整后,参加综合门诊或短期住院心脏康复分别与主要结局(死亡或心血管住院)风险显著降低42%和21%相关。死亡率也有所降低(分别降低46%和41%),而住院风险降低仅在接受综合心脏康复的患者中具有统计学意义(降低60%)。参加任何一种心脏康复计划都能改善心血管结局,但综合门诊心脏康复能带来更好的风险降低效果,主要是通过减少心血管住院。

关键学习要点

心脏康复可改善冠心病患者的结局。尽管心脏康复的疗效已得到证实,但其参与率仍不理想。通过设立专门的区域中心改善心脏康复的可及性可能会提高参与率,但也可能排挤现有的心脏康复选择。不同心脏康复模式(如综合门诊与短期住院心脏康复)的比较效果仍未得到充分研究。扩大心脏康复服务(通过设立专门的区域综合门诊中心)可显著提高心肌梗死后心脏康复的参与率。心肌梗死后参加综合门诊或短期住院心脏康复均与改善结局相关(即分别使死亡或心血管住院风险显著降低42%和21%)。综合门诊心脏康复主要通过减少心血管住院带来更好的风险降低效果。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c7da/12427614/d5d34b5d30a6/gh-20-1-1470-g1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验