Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (5)
Document Type
- Article (5) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (5)
Keywords
- cardiac rehabilitation (5) (remove)
Institute
- Department Sport- und Gesundheitswissenschaften (5) (remove)
Ziel:
Untersucht wurden subjektive bio-psycho-soziale Auswirkungen chronischer Herz- und Gefäßerkrankungen, Bewältigungsstrategien und Formen sozialer Unterstützung bei Rehabilitanden in besonderen beruflichen Problemlagen (BBPL).
Methodik:
Für die qualitative Untersuchung wurden 17 Patienten (48,9±7,0 Jahre, 13 männl.) mit BBPL (SIMBO-C>30) in leitfadengestützten Interviews befragt. Die Auswertung erfolgte softwaregestützt nach dem inhaltsanalytischen Ansatz von Mayring.
Ergebnisse:
Im Rahmen der Krankheitsauswirkungen benannten die Patienten soziale, einschließlich beruflicher Aspekte mit 62% der Aussagen deutlich häufiger als physische oder psychische Faktoren (9 bzw. 29%). Angewandte Bewältigungsstrategien und erfahrene Unterstützungsleistungen richteten sich jedoch überwiegend auf körperliche Einschränkungen (70 bzw. 45%).
Schlussfolgerung:
Obgleich soziale Krankheitsauswirkungen für die befragten Rehabilitanden subjektiv bedeutsam waren, gelang die Entwicklung geeigneter Bewältigungsstrategien nur unzureichen
Background
Despite numerous studies and meta-analyses the prognostic effect of cardiac rehabilitation is still under debate. This update of the Cardiac Rehabilitation Outcome Study (CROS II) provides a contemporary and practice focused approach including only cardiac rehabilitation interventions based on published standards and core components to evaluate cardiac rehabilitation delivery and effectiveness in improving patient prognosis.
Design
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Methods
Randomised controlled trials and retrospective and prospective controlled cohort studies evaluating patients after acute coronary syndrome, coronary artery bypass grafting or mixed populations with coronary artery disease published until September 2018 were included.
Resulte
Based on CROS inclusion criteria out of 7096 abstracts six additional studies including 8671 patients were identified (two randomised controlled trials, two retrospective controlled cohort studies, two prospective controlled cohort studies). In total, 31 studies including 228,337 patients were available for this meta-analysis (three randomised controlled trials, nine prospective controlled cohort studies, 19 retrospective controlled cohort studies; 50,653 patients after acute coronary syndrome 14,583, after coronary artery bypass grafting 163,101, mixed coronary artery disease populations; follow-up periods ranging from 9 months to 14 years). Heterogeneity in design, cardiac rehabilitation delivery, biometrical assessment and potential confounders was considerable. Controlled cohort studies showed a significantly reduced total mortality (primary endpoint) after cardiac rehabilitation participation in patients after acute coronary syndrome (prospective controlled cohort studies: hazard ratio (HR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20-0.69; retrospective controlled cohort studies HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.76; prospective controlled cohort studies odds ratio 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.48), but the single randomised controlled trial fulfilling the CROS inclusion criteria showed neutral results. Cardiac rehabilitation participation was also associated with reduced total mortality in patients after coronary artery bypass grafting (retrospective controlled cohort studies HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.70, one single randomised controlled trial without fatal events), and in mixed coronary artery disease populations (retrospective controlled cohort studies HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36-0.77; two out of 10 controlled cohort studies with neutral results).
Conclusion
CROS II confirms the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation participation after acute coronary syndrome and after coronary artery bypass grafting in actual clinical practice by reducing total mortality under the conditions of current evidence-based coronary artery disease treatment. The data of CROS II, however, underscore the urgent need to define internationally accepted minimal standards for cardiac rehabilitation delivery as well as for scientific evaluation.
Background
Although associations between cardiovascular diseases and cognitive impairment are well known, the impact of cognitive performance on the success of patient education as a core component of cardiac rehabilitation remains insufficiently investigated so far.
Design
Prospective observational study in two inpatient cardiac rehabilitation centres between September 2014 and August 2015 with a follow-up six months after cardiac rehabilitation.
Method
At admission to and discharge from cardiac rehabilitation, the cognitive performance of 401 patients (54.5 ± 6.3 years, 80% men) following an acute coronary syndrome and/or coronary artery bypass graft was tested using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Patients’ disease-related knowledge was determined using a quiz (22 items for medical knowledge and 12 items for healthy lifestyle and behaviour) at both times and at follow-up. The change in knowledge after cardiac rehabilitation was analysed in multivariable regression models. Potentially influencing parameters (e.g. level of education, medication, cardiovascular risk factors, coronary artery bypass graft, comorbidities, exercise capacity) were considered.
Results
During cardiac rehabilitation, disease-related knowledge was significantly enhanced in both scales. At follow-up, the average level of medical knowledge was significantly reduced, while lifestyle knowledge remained at a stable level. The maintenance of knowledge after cardiac rehabilitation was predominantly predicted by prior knowledge, cognitive performance at discharge from cardiac rehabilitation and, in the case of medical knowledge, by coronary artery bypass graft.
Conclusion
Patient education in cardiac rehabilitation led to enhanced disease-related knowledge, but the maintenance of this essentially depended on patients’ cognitive performance, especially after coronary artery bypass graft. Therefore, patient education concepts in cardiac rehabilitation should be reconsidered and adjusted as needed.
Ziel der Studie Die vorliegende Untersuchung beinhaltete die explorative Erfassung potenzieller Indikatoren der Ergebnisqualität der kardiologischen Rehabilitation (CR) für Patienten unter 65 Jahren.
Methoden In einer 4-stufigen webbasierten Delphi-Befragung (04-07/2016) von in der CR tätigen Ärzten[2] , Psychologen und Sport-/Physiotherapeuten wurden Parameter der körperlichen Leistungsfähigkeit, der Sozialmedizin, der subjektiven Gesundheit und kardiovaskuläre Risikofaktoren hinsichtlich ihrer Eignung als Qualitätsindikator bewertet.
Ergebnisse Von 44 vorgegebenen wie auch von den Teilnehmern vorgeschlagenen Parametern wurden 21 Parameter (48%), die Hälfte davon psychosoziale Faktoren, als potenzielle Qualitätsindikatoren ausgewählt, wobei lediglich für das Rauchverhalten, den Blutdruck, das LDL-Cholesterin und die max. Belastbarkeit im Belastungs-EKG ein Konsens (Zustimmung>75% der Befragten) erzielt wurde.
Schlussfolgerung Die Wahl der Qualitätsindikatoren durch die Experten erfolgte mehrheitlich mit nur geringer Einigkeit. Eine klinische und wissenschaftliche Evaluierung der gewählten Parameter ist daher zwingend erforderlich.
Background: So far, for center comparisons in inpatient cardiac rehabilitation (CR), the objective outcome quality was neglected because of challenges in quantifying the overall success of CR. In this article, a multifactorial benchmark model measuring the individual rehabilitation success is presented.
Methods: In 21 rehabilitation centers, 5 123 patients were consecutively enrolled between 01/2010 and 12/2012 in the prospective multicenter registry EVA-Reha (R) Cardiology. Changes in 13 indicators in the areas cardiovascular risk factors, physical performance and subjective health during rehabilitation were evaluated according to levels of severity. Changes were only rated for patients who needed a medical intervention. Additionally, the changes had to be clinically relevant. Therefore Minimal Important Differences (MID) were predefined. Ratings were combined to a single score, the multiple outcome criterion (MEK).
Results: The MEK was determined for all patients (71.7 +/- 7.4 years, 76.9 % men) and consisted of an average of 5.6 indicators. After risk adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical baseline parameters, MEK was used for center ranking. In addition, individual results of indicators were compared with means of all study sites.
Conclusion: With the method presented here, the outcome quality can be quantified and outcome-based comparisons of providers can be made.