Efficacy of out-patient cardiac rehabilitation in low prognostic risk patients after acute myocardial infarction in primary intervention era

15Citations
Citations of this article
69Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: The efficacy of out-patient cardiac rehabilitation (OPCR) in patients with a low prognostic risk after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is unclear in the recent primary intervention era. Methods and Results: A total of 637 AMI patients who participated in in-hospital cardiac rehabilitation were divided into 2 groups; low prognostic risk group (n=219; age <65 years, successful reperfusion, Killip class I, peak serum creatine kinase <6,000 U/L, and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40%) and non-low prognostic risk group (n=418). The prevalence of coronary risk factors (CRF) was compared between the 2 groups. Then, in the lowrisk group, the efficacy of OPCR was compared between active OPCR participants (n=52; ≥20 sessions/3 months) and non-active participants (n=60; <6 sessions/3 months). Compared with the non-low prognostic risk group, the low prognostic risk group had a significantly higher prevalence of current smokers (72% vs. 49%, P<0.05) and patients with multiple CRF (3 or more; 49% vs. 39%, P<0.05). Among the low-risk group, active OPCR participants showed a significantly greater improvement in exercise capacity (peak VO2, P<0.05) and maintained a better CRF profile (total cholesterol, triglyceride and blood pressure, all P<0.05) than inactive participants at 3 months. Conclusions: Low prognostic risk AMI patients have a higher prevalence of multiple CRF than non-low risk patients. Even in this low risk group, active participation in OPCR is associated with improved exercise capacity and better CRF profile.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kamakura, T., Kawakami, R., Nakanishi, M., Ibuki, M., Ohara, T., Yanase, M., … Goto, Y. (2011). Efficacy of out-patient cardiac rehabilitation in low prognostic risk patients after acute myocardial infarction in primary intervention era. Circulation Journal, 75(2), 315–321. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-10-0813

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free