Mortality and Readmission Outcomes for Intensive and Conventional Cardiac Rehabilitation (MR-OFICR) Study.

IF 0.6 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Yash B Patel, Agara Kumar, Marianne Huebner, Mohammed El Nayir, Anupam Suneja, Frank Smith
{"title":"Mortality and Readmission Outcomes for Intensive and Conventional Cardiac Rehabilitation (MR-OFICR) Study.","authors":"Yash B Patel, Agara Kumar, Marianne Huebner, Mohammed El Nayir, Anupam Suneja, Frank Smith","doi":"10.55729/2000-9666.1514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cardiac rehabilitation programs are offered in two major formats: Conventional Cardiac Rehab (CCR), which is primarily based on exercise interventions, and Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation (ICR), which is a holistic approach including dietary modifications with a plant-based diet and wellness counseling. We performed a retrospective cohort study to compare the CCR and ICR groups for the primary composite outcome of Major Adverse Cardiac Event (MACE) at two years. The MACE outcome was 2-year mortality, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, Myocardial Infarction (MI), Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG), Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI), and stroke. Secondary outcomes were overall mortality, and number of readmissions. There were 2104 patients included in the statistical analysis with 963 in the CCR group and 1141 in the ICR group. We found that there were no significant differences in MACE events between ICR and CCR (OR = 1.10; 95 % CI = 0.81-1.49; p = 0.55). Readmissions were higher in the ICR group than the CCR group, with 34.1 % vs 28.6 % (p = 0.006), respectively. Additionally, older age was associated with more MACE events (OR = 1.16; 95 % CI = 1.07-1.25; p < 0.001). Overall, our study did not demonstrate a difference in the composite MACE outcome between ICR and CCR.</p>","PeriodicalId":15460,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives","volume":"15 4","pages":"8-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12315907/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55729/2000-9666.1514","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cardiac rehabilitation programs are offered in two major formats: Conventional Cardiac Rehab (CCR), which is primarily based on exercise interventions, and Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation (ICR), which is a holistic approach including dietary modifications with a plant-based diet and wellness counseling. We performed a retrospective cohort study to compare the CCR and ICR groups for the primary composite outcome of Major Adverse Cardiac Event (MACE) at two years. The MACE outcome was 2-year mortality, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, Myocardial Infarction (MI), Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG), Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI), and stroke. Secondary outcomes were overall mortality, and number of readmissions. There were 2104 patients included in the statistical analysis with 963 in the CCR group and 1141 in the ICR group. We found that there were no significant differences in MACE events between ICR and CCR (OR = 1.10; 95 % CI = 0.81-1.49; p = 0.55). Readmissions were higher in the ICR group than the CCR group, with 34.1 % vs 28.6 % (p = 0.006), respectively. Additionally, older age was associated with more MACE events (OR = 1.16; 95 % CI = 1.07-1.25; p < 0.001). Overall, our study did not demonstrate a difference in the composite MACE outcome between ICR and CCR.

强化和常规心脏康复(MR-OFICR)研究的死亡率和再入院结果。
心脏康复计划以两种主要形式提供:传统心脏康复(CCR),主要基于运动干预,以及强化心脏康复(ICR),这是一种整体方法,包括以植物性饮食和健康咨询为基础的饮食调整。我们进行了一项回顾性队列研究,比较CCR组和ICR组两年时主要心脏不良事件(MACE)的主要复合结局。MACE结果为2年死亡率、需要住院治疗的不稳定型心绞痛、心肌梗死(MI)、冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)、经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)和中风。次要结局是总死亡率和再入院人数。纳入统计分析的患者2104例,其中CCR组963例,ICR组1141例。我们发现ICR和CCR在MACE事件上没有显著差异(OR = 1.10;95% ci = 0.81-1.49;P = 0.55)。ICR组再入院率高于CCR组,分别为34.1% vs 28.6% (p = 0.006)。此外,年龄越大,MACE事件越多(OR = 1.16;95% ci = 1.07-1.25;P < 0.001)。总的来说,我们的研究没有证明ICR和CCR在综合MACE结果上有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
106
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: JCHIMP provides: up-to-date information in the field of Internal Medicine to community hospital medical professionals a platform for clinical faculty, residents, and medical students to publish research relevant to community hospital programs. Manuscripts that explore aspects of medicine at community hospitals welcome, including but not limited to: the best practices of community academic programs community hospital-based research opinion and insight from community hospital leadership and faculty the scholarly work of residents and medical students affiliated with community hospitals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信