Conclusions Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation is effective at reducing important clinical outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease .
While our analysis was constrained by the quality of included trials and missing information about intervention components , there appears to be little differential effect of variations in exercise intervention , particularly on mortality outcomes .
Background While the clinical benefits of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation are well established , there is extensive variation in the interventions used within these trials .
It is unknown whether variations in individual components of these exercise interventions provide different relative contributions to overall clinical outcomes .
This study aims to systematic ally examine the relationship between individual components of the exercise intervention in cardiac rehabilitation ( such as intensity and frequency ) and clinical outcomes for people with coronary heart disease .
Hospital-based comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care among patients with congestive heart failure, ischemic heart disease, or high risk of ischemic heart disease: 12-month results of a randomized clinical trial.
BACKGROUND Current guidelines broadly recommend comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation ( CCR ) , although evidence for this is still limited . We investigated the 12-month effect of hospital-based CCR versus usual care ( UC ) for a broadly defined group of cardiac patients within the modern therapeutic era of cardiology . METHODS We conducted a central ly r and omized single-center clinical trial with blinded assessment of the primary outcome : registry-based composite of total mortality , myocardial infa rct ion , or acute first-time readmission due to heart disease . Other outcomes were hospitalization , risk profile , and quality of life . The trial included 770 participants ( 20 - 94 years ) with congestive heart failure ( 12 % ) , ischemic heart disease ( 58 % ) , or high risk of ischemic heart disease ( 30 % ) .  Comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation is composed of 6 weeks of intensive intervention and systematic follow-up for 10.5 months . RESULTS We r and omized 380 patients to CCR versus 390 to UC . R and omization was well balanced . The primary outcome occurred in 31 % of both groups ( relative risk 0.96 , 95 % confidence interval 0.78 - 1.26 ) . Compared with the UC group , CCR significantly reduced length of stay by 15 % ( 95 % confidence interval 1.1%-27.1 % , P = .04 ) , mean number of cardiac risk factors above target ( 4.5 vs 4.1 , P = .01 ) , patients with systolic blood pressure below target ( P = .003 ) , physically inactivity ( P = .01 ) , and unhealthy dietary habits ( P = .0003 ) . Short-Form-36 and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale did not differ significantly . CONCLUSION At 12 months , the CCR and UC groups did not differ regarding the primary composite outcome . Comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation significantly reduced length of hospital stay and improved cardiac risk factors
Conclusions Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation is effective at reducing important clinical outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease .
While our analysis was constrained by the quality of included trials and missing information about intervention components , there appears to be little differential effect of variations in exercise intervention , particularly on mortality outcomes .
Background While the clinical benefits of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation are well established , there is extensive variation in the interventions used within these trials .
It is unknown whether variations in individual components of these exercise interventions provide different relative contributions to overall clinical outcomes .
This study aims to systematic ally examine the relationship between individual components of the exercise intervention in cardiac rehabilitation ( such as intensity and frequency ) and clinical outcomes for people with coronary heart disease .