Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (2)
- Postprint (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (3)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- ja (3) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- cardiac rehabilitation (3) (entfernen)
Frailty and cardiac rehabilitation: A call to action from the EAPC Cardiac Rehabilitation Section
(2017)
Frailty is a geriatric syndrome characterised by a vulnerability status associated with declining function of multiple physiological systems and loss of physiological reserves. Two main models of frailty have been advanced: the phenotypic model (primary frailty) or deficits accumulation model (secondary frailty), and different instruments have been proposed and validated to measure frailty. However measured, frailty correlates to medical outcomes in the elderly, and has been shown to have prognostic value for patients in different clinical settings, such as in patients with coronary artery disease, after cardiac surgery or transvalvular aortic valve replacement, in patients with chronic heart failure or after left ventricular assist device implantation. The prevalence, clinical and prognostic relevance of frailty in a cardiac rehabilitation setting has not yet been well characterised, despite the increasing frequency of elderly patients in cardiac rehabilitation, where frailty is likely to influence the onset, type and intensity of the exercise training programme and the design of tailored rehabilitative interventions for these patients. Therefore, we need to start looking for frailty in elderly patients entering cardiac rehabilitation programmes and become more familiar with some of the tools to recognise and evaluate the severity of this condition. Furthermore, we need to better understand whether exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation may change the course and the prognosis of frailty in cardiovascular patients.
Frailty is a geriatric syndrome characterised by a vulnerability status associated with declining function of multiple physiological systems and loss of physiological reserves. Two main models of frailty have been advanced: the phenotypic model (primary frailty) or deficits accumulation model (secondary frailty), and different instruments have been proposed and validated to measure frailty. However measured, frailty correlates to medical outcomes in the elderly, and has been shown to have prognostic value for patients in different clinical settings, such as in patients with coronary artery disease, after cardiac surgery or transvalvular aortic valve replacement, in patients with chronic heart failure or after left ventricular assist device implantation.
The prevalence, clinical and prognostic relevance of frailty in a cardiac rehabilitation setting has not yet been well characterised, despite the increasing frequency of elderly patients in cardiac rehabilitation, where frailty is likely to influence the onset, type and intensity of the exercise training programme and the design of tailored rehabilitative interventions for these patients.
Therefore, we need to start looking for frailty in elderly patients entering cardiac rehabilitation programmes and become more familiar with some of the tools to recognise and evaluate the severity of this condition. Furthermore, we need to better understand whether exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation may change the course and the prognosis of frailty in cardiovascular patients.
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.