@article{VoellerSchwaab2020,
  author    = {V{\"o}ller, Heinz and Schwaab, Bernhard},
  title     = {Kardiologische Rehabilitation},
  series = {Der Kardiologe : die Fortbildungszeitschrift der Deutschen Gesellschaft f{\"u}r Kardiologie, Herz- und Kreislaufforschung},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Der Kardiologe : die Fortbildungszeitschrift der Deutschen Gesellschaft f{\"u}r Kardiologie, Herz- und Kreislaufforschung},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {1864-9718},
  doi       = {10.1007/s12181-020-00384-2},
  pages     = {106 -- 112},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Hintergrund Eine Verl{\"a}ngerung der Lebens- und Arbeitszeit erfordert einen aktiven Lebensstil, eine Optimierung von kardiovaskul{\"a}ren Risikofaktoren und psychosoziale Unterst{\"u}tzung chronisch Herzkranker. Fragestellung K{\"o}nnen die Prognose und Lebensqualit{\"a}t sowie die soziale oder berufliche Teilhabe kardiovaskul{\"a}r Erkrankter durch kardiologische Rehabilitation (KardReha) verbessert werden? Material und Methode Auf der Grundlage neuer Metaanalysen und aktueller Positionspapiere gibt die S3-Leitlinie zur kardiologischen Rehabilitation evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen. Ergebnisse Eine KardReha reduziert bei Patienten nach akutem Koronarsyndrom, nach PCI („percutaneous coronary interventions") oder nach aortokoronarer Koronarbypassoperation (ACB-Op.) sowie nach Klappenkorrektur die Gesamtsterblichkeit. Bei Patienten mit systolischer Herzinsuffizienz (HFrEF [„heart failure with reduced ejection fraction"]) werden Belastbarkeit und Lebensqualit{\"a}t durch eine KardReha verbessert. Psychosozialer Distress kann verringert und die berufliche Wiedereingliederung besser strukturiert werden. Schlussfolgerung Im Jahr 2019 liegen aktuelle, evidenzbasierte Leitlinien vor, die aufgrund verbesserter Prognose, Belastbarkeit und Lebensqualit{\"a}t eine multimodale kardiologische Rehabilitation bei Patienten nach akutem kardialem Ereignis auch bei technischem Fortschritt (z. B. katheterbasierter Klappenkorrektur) und unter Aspekten der sozialen und beruflichen Teilhabe empfehlen.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{BoldtLeberBonaventuraetal.2013,
  author    = {Boldt, Julia and Leber, Alexander W. and Bonaventura, Klaus and Sohns, Christian and Stula, Martin and Huppertz, Alexander and Haverkamp, Wilhelm and Dorenkamp, Marc},
  title     = {Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease in Germany},
  series = {Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance},
  volume    = {15},
  journal   = {Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance},
  number    = {30},
  publisher = {BioMed Central},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1097-6647},
  doi       = {10.1186/1532-429X-15-30},
  pages     = {11},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Background: Recent studies have demonstrated a superior diagnostic accuracy of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to determine the comparative cost-effectiveness of CMR versus single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Methods: Based on Bayes' theorem, a mathematical model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness and utility of CMR with SPECT in patients with suspected CAD. Invasive coronary angiography served as the standard of reference. Effectiveness was defined as the accurate detection of CAD, and utility as the number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Model input parameters were derived from the literature, and the cost analysis was conducted from a German health care payer's perspective. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Reimbursement fees represented only a minor fraction of the total costs incurred by a diagnostic strategy. Increases in the prevalence of CAD were generally associated with improved cost-effectiveness and decreased costs per utility unit (Delta QALY). By comparison, CMR was consistently more cost-effective than SPECT, and showed lower costs per QALY gained. Given a CAD prevalence of 0.50, CMR was associated with total costs of (sic)6,120 for one patient correctly diagnosed as having CAD and with (sic)2,246 per Delta QALY gained versus (sic)7,065 and (sic)2,931 for SPECT, respectively. Above a threshold value of CAD prevalence of 0.60, proceeding directly to invasive angiography was the most cost-effective approach. Conclusions: In patients with low to intermediate CAD probabilities, CMR is more cost-effective than SPECT. Moreover, lower costs per utility unit indicate a superior clinical utility of CMR.},
  language  = {en}
}