ライフサイエンスコーパス: cardiac rehabilitation

1 and 42 "control" patients who did not attend cardiac rehabilitation).

2 Following hospitalization, he completes cardiac rehabilitation.

3 eferral to, enrollment in, and completion of cardiac rehabilitation.

4 after CABG may be improved as a function of cardiac rehabilitation.

5 men, 46% age >70 years), 55% participated in cardiac rehabilitation.

6 rtery disease, of whom 996 declined to start cardiac rehabilitation.

7 y disease in Europe are not participating in cardiac rehabilitation.

8 low- and moderate-risk patients enrolled in cardiac rehabilitation.

9 t of osteoporosis screening, spirometry, and cardiac rehabilitation.

10 medication adherence, and poor attendance at cardiac rehabilitation.

11 rks developed through decades of delivery of cardiac rehabilitation.

12 on are multidimensional and include tailored cardiac rehabilitation.

13 -120 days), and completion (121-182 days) of cardiac rehabilitation.

14 d secondary prevention strategies, including cardiac rehabilitation.

15 the major contemporary challenges that face cardiac rehabilitation.

16 directed medical therapy, device therapy and cardiac rehabilitation.

17 mework for equity-centered digital health in cardiac rehabilitation.

18 ascular disease, including those enrolled in cardiac rehabilitation.

19 tributed to a further reduction in access to cardiac rehabilitation.

20 or Fitbit Versa) to participants initiating cardiac rehabilitation.

21 st-effectiveness of traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation.

22 icularly for hydralazine, ARNI, devices, and cardiac rehabilitation.

23 l in improving Vo2peak when compared with no cardiac rehabilitation.

24 vascular disease patients undergoing phase I cardiac rehabilitation.

25 population and cardiac patients eligible for cardiac rehabilitation.

26 ng PCI in the United States are referred for cardiac rehabilitation.

27 ssociated with increased odds of referral to cardiac rehabilitation.

28 This issue may affect cardiac rehabilitation.

29 ay help to enhance the beneficial effects of cardiac rehabilitation.

30 benefit, utilization, and implementation of cardiac rehabilitation.

31 vised for many patients, few patients attend cardiac rehabilitation.

32 harged from these hospitals were referred to cardiac rehabilitation.

33 -day readmission rate (45%, 5/11 societies), cardiac rehabilitation (36%, 4/11 societies), and multid

34 ted to higher odds ratio of participating in cardiac rehabilitation (4.67 [95% CI, 4.44-4.88]), consu

35 availability of cardiac surgery (51.1%) and cardiac rehabilitation (68.8%).

36 Nonparticipation in cardiac rehabilitation, a cardiometabolic risk profile,

37 an, programme, and patient level barriers to cardiac rehabilitation access in LMICs are provided.

38 rence rates and reduce health disparities in cardiac rehabilitation access.

39 mprovement study assesses referral rates for cardiac rehabilitation after a default opt-out option is

40 Dialysis patients who received cardiac rehabilitation after CABG had a 35% reduced risk

41 Only 10% of patients received cardiac rehabilitation after CABG, compared with an esti

42 imately half of the patients participated in cardiac rehabilitation after MI.

43 f this study was to examine participation in cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction (MI)

44 Most participants enrolled in cardiac rehabilitation after percutaneous coronary inter

45 Rates of referral to cardiac rehabilitation after percutaneous coronary inter

46 country range 3.8%-20.0%) reported attending cardiac rehabilitation and 1.0% (inter-country range .0%

47 heart disease and heart failure, to specific cardiac rehabilitation and ET programs.

48 ve patients before and after formal phase II cardiac rehabilitation and exercise training programs an

49 s the effects of three-month formal phase II cardiac rehabilitation and exercise training programs on

50 est an additional benefit of formal phase II cardiac rehabilitation and exercise training programs.

51 ed physician awareness about the benefits of cardiac rehabilitation and initiatives to overcome barri

52 Home-MCT was a promising addition to cardiac rehabilitation and may offer improved access to

53 ved prognosis as it may facilitate access to cardiac rehabilitation and may provide a higher standard

54 r myocardial infarction (ie, new users), and cardiac rehabilitation and outpatient cardiologist visit

55 Medicare claims (1998 to 2002) for CABG and cardiac rehabilitation and patient information from the

56 abilitation update on the core components of cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention programs

57 rovides a contemporary global perspective on cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention, contras

58 The science of cardiac rehabilitation and the secondary prevention of c

59 f the challenges of traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation and to augment care delivery.

60 determine whether HRR could be improved with cardiac rehabilitation and whether it would be predictiv

61 , was a pioneer in public health cardiology, cardiac rehabilitation, and cardiac psychology.

62 eventive care, management of osteoarthritis, cardiac rehabilitation, and diabetes care.

63 artment visit, were more likely to enroll in cardiac rehabilitation, and had modestly higher mortalit

64 cular ejection fraction, 30-day readmission, cardiac rehabilitation, and multidisciplinary management

65 o 4 basic services (family doctor, pharmacy, cardiac rehabilitation, and pathology services) when a p

66 essment of ventricular function, referral to cardiac rehabilitation, and smoking cessation counseling

67 high-dose statin at discharge, attendance at cardiac rehabilitation, and the GRACE (Global Registry o

68 1 to 120 minutes had lower odds of receiving cardiac rehabilitation (aOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87).

69 Cardiac rehabilitation appears beneficial in an increasi

70 Finally, recommendations for cardiac rehabilitation are addressed.

71 Smoking cessation and participation in cardiac rehabilitation are also priorities, as are lifes

72 eline standards for secondary prevention and cardiac rehabilitation are being achieved in a timely ma

73 il elders with CVD such as multidisciplinary cardiac rehabilitation are being actively tested.

74 A substantive evidence base supports cardiac rehabilitation as a clinically effective and cos

75 ts home-based and technology-based models of cardiac rehabilitation as alternatives or adjuncts to tr

76 iteria were: randomised controlled trials of cardiac rehabilitation as configured for a publicly fund

77 Overall, only 40,974 (56%) were referred to cardiac rehabilitation at discharge, ranging from 53% fo

78 ers of eligible patients are not referred to cardiac rehabilitation at hospital discharge despite pro

79 al sessions (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 2.12-2.47) in cardiac rehabilitation but also with more monitoring of

80 Cardiac rehabilitation can promote improved survival of

81 ram could be explained by improved access to cardiac rehabilitation, cardiac care, and cardiac proced

82 ass surgery, or valve surgery be referred to cardiac rehabilitation, cardiac rehabilitation is underu

83 uintile mediated through nonparticipation in cardiac rehabilitation, cardiometabolic risk profile, pe

84 ardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) vs center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) results in similar clinica

85 s with coronary heart disease in 3 Norwegian cardiac rehabilitation centers.

86 bilitation was Rarely Appropriate except for cardiac rehabilitation clearance for heart failure patie

87 ECG was suggested as an Appropriate test for cardiac rehabilitation clearance or for exercise prescri

88 data from 4, adding unpublished data from a cardiac rehabilitation cohort.

89 In response, the Million Hearts Cardiac Rehabilitation Collaborative developed a road ma

90 In patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation, contextually tailored text messa

91 Unfortunately, cardiac rehabilitation continues to be considerably unde

92 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) after acute myocardial infar

93 cial alternative to traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and might be associated with

94 Communication between cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and primary care providers (

95 A multidisciplinary cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and risk reduction program i

96 Anxiety and depression in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) are associated with greater

97 More than 80% of patients entering cardiac rehabilitation (CR) are overweight, and >50% hav

98 Exercise training and other components of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) are safe and beneficial and

99 Despite cardiac rehabilitation (CR) being shown to improve healt

100 Outpatient cardiac rehabilitation (CR) decreases mortality rates bu

101 pite lower baseline fitness levels, women in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) do not typically improve pea

102 Guidelines recommend that cardiac rehabilitation (CR) exercise training should not

103 ll testing is commonly performed on entry to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) for its prognostic value and

104 Coverage for cardiac rehabilitation (CR) for patients with heart fail

105 common reason for referral to exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) globally.

106 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has evolved from foundations

107 Traditional cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves cardiovascular outc

108 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves outcomes following

109 Increased physical activity (PA) through cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves outcomes in patient

110 Importance: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves survival after acut

111 Current guidelines recommend cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in medically stable outpatie

112 There is marked geographic variation in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) initiation, ranging from 10%

113 Although cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a Class I Guideline recom

114 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a guideline-recommended,

115 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a medically supervised pr

116 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a proven intervention to

117 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an efficacious yet underu

118 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an evidence-based interve

119 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is associated with improved

120 Although numerous studies have reported that cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is associated with reduced m

121 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is effective in prolonging s

122 While underutilized, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is guideline-recommended for

123 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recommended after coronar

124 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recommended by the Americ

125 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recommended for all patie

126 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recommended in clinical p

127 Currently, exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is the only recommended seco

128 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is the standard of care for

129 emic on participation in and availability of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is unknown.

130 This study assessed the effects of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on survival in a large cohor

131 Although disparities in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) participation are well docum

132 Given the shortage of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs in India and poor u

133 esentatives from professional organizations, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs, academic instituti

134 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) reduces morbidity and mortal

135 ase, participation in traditional ambulatory cardiac rehabilitation (CR) remains low.

136 Many see the broadened eligibility of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) to include heart failure wit

137 ong endorsement in international guidelines, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) use remains low.

138 e setting of aortic valve replacement (AVR), cardiac rehabilitation (CR) utilization remains low, wit

139 depressive symptoms when delivered alongside cardiac rehabilitation (CR).

140 rom existing meta-analyses of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR).

141 facilitate an improvement in the quality of cardiac rehabilitation delivered in clinical practice.

142 dence base, clinical guidance, and status of cardiac rehabilitation delivery for patients with heart

143 admissions, emergency department visits, and cardiac rehabilitation enrollment at 30 and 90 days afte

144 eceived stress testing for staging purposes, cardiac rehabilitation evaluation, or preoperative testi

145 c reviews have indicated that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) for patients with heart fa

146 ational study suggests a survival benefit of cardiac rehabilitation for dialysis patients after CABG.

147 e a mobile health intervention to supplement cardiac rehabilitation for low- and moderate-risk patien

148 rch to fully implement a multimodal model of cardiac rehabilitation for patients with cancer and to d

149 ferral systems, and the option of home-based cardiac rehabilitation for some patients may all help to

150 83 [77.5%]; OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68-1.38) and cardiac rehabilitation (GRS: 855 of 1135 [75.1%] vs cont

151 Cardiac rehabilitation has been established as an effect

152 Lesser participation in cardiac rehabilitation has been reported for women and t

153 Cardiac rehabilitation has strong evidence of benefit ac

154 The core components of cardiac rehabilitation have been delineated in detail.

155 e suggested that participation in home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) vs center-based cardiac re

156 with coronary heart disease, exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation improves survival rate and has be

157 This review indicates that cardiac rehabilitation improves the quality of life for

158 lood pressure during 631 repeated visits for cardiac rehabilitation in 62 Boston residents with cardi

159 e of and factors associated with referral to cardiac rehabilitation in a national PCI cohort, and to

160 odels of delivery that can improve access to cardiac rehabilitation in all income settings.

161 the quality of life and mortality effects of cardiac rehabilitation in older people.

162 include strengthening the evidence base for cardiac rehabilitation in other indications, including h

163 h is supportive of the beneficial effects of cardiac rehabilitation in patients with heart failure as

164 o pharmacological agents, device therapy and cardiac rehabilitation in patients with heart failure.

165 Heart rate recovery improved after phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation in the overall cohort.

166 d with dialysis patients who did not receive cardiac rehabilitation, independent of sociodemographic

167 Sex but not age or cardiac rehabilitation indication was significantly asso

168 icantly associated with age and sex, but not cardiac rehabilitation indication.

169 cardiac dysfunction and a description of the cardiac rehabilitation infrastructure needed to address

170 Inadequate reporting of cardiac rehabilitation interventions is a substantial pr

171 tematic review was to explore the effects of cardiac rehabilitation interventions on the quality of l

172 he development and implementation of digital cardiac rehabilitation interventions that can be transla

173 Cardiac rehabilitation is a complex intervention that se

174 Cardiac rehabilitation is defined as a multidisciplinary

175 Cardiac rehabilitation is increasingly recognized as an

176 Although nonparticipation in cardiac rehabilitation is known to increase cardiovascul

177 ical activity in patients when they initiate cardiac rehabilitation is poorly understood.

178 rgery be referred to cardiac rehabilitation, cardiac rehabilitation is underused.

179 ies have found that HRR can be improved with cardiac rehabilitation, it is unknown whether an improve

180 this population; a multimodal model such as cardiac rehabilitation may be a potential solution.

181 Physical domain outcomes suggest that cardiac rehabilitation may improve physical well-being a

182 r ischemic heart disease, 11 171 (15.3%) had cardiac rehabilitation (mean [SD] age, 70.0 [10.8] years

183 orporating neurorehabilitation into existing cardiac rehabilitation models to support holistic recove

184 Future approaches to the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation need to align with the growing mu

185 e follow-up at 48 hours after discharge by a cardiac rehabilitation nurse and underwent a virtual fol

186 The Committee on Exercise and Cardiac Rehabilitation of the American Heart Association

187 Additionally, we determined the effects of cardiac rehabilitation on HSCRP independent of statin th

188 n therapy (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.68-1.14]), or cardiac rehabilitation (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.20-1.00]).

189 atients with CHD (ie, medications, exercise, cardiac rehabilitation, or therapy) comprising data from

190 group with normal HRR at baseline and after cardiac rehabilitation (P=0.143).

191 s, including transitions of care, the use of cardiac rehabilitation, palliative care services, and ho

192 Given that cardiac rehabilitation participation results in importan

193 In cardiac rehabilitation patients, particles were associat

194 y 2020 included women from a community-based cardiac rehabilitation program affiliated with a univers

195 Hospitals having an outpatient cardiac rehabilitation program explained only 10% of PCI

196 November 2009, who participated in a 10-week cardiac rehabilitation program following a recent (withi

197 style changes effected through a three-month cardiac rehabilitation program significantly improved nu

198 patients were enrolled in a standard 3-month cardiac rehabilitation program.

199 ing before and after completion of a phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation program.

200 ned to participate in a six-month structured cardiac-rehabilitation program (exercise group, 14 patie

201 (A study on effectiveness of YOGA based cardiac rehabilitation programme in India and United Kin

202 Effectiveness and Sustainability of Current Cardiac Rehabilitation Programmes in the Elderly trial.

203 y heart disease who are attending structured cardiac rehabilitation programmes.

204 Timely access, adherence, and efficacy of cardiac rehabilitation programs (CRP) are important give

205 Cardiac rehabilitation programs and increasing levels of

206 itation services, has expanded the ways that cardiac rehabilitation programs can reach patients.

207 Although cardiac rehabilitation programs often contain a nutritio

208 uce HSCRP levels, the independent effects of cardiac rehabilitation programs on HSCRP are not well es

209 n addition, in recognition that high-quality cardiac rehabilitation programs regularly monitor their

210 eight loss require long-term commitment, but cardiac rehabilitation programs represent a potential op

211 e warranted to explore whether personalizing cardiac rehabilitation programs using mobile health tech

212 and preventive interventions, such as early cardiac rehabilitation programs.

213 ndomized controlled trials of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation published until December 2013.

214 ; 95% confidence interval: 1.03 to 1.26) and cardiac rehabilitation referral (rate ratio: 1.40; 95% c

215 y was to examine hospital-level variation in cardiac rehabilitation referral after PCI, coronary arte

216 cludes with an emphasis on the importance of cardiac rehabilitation referral and patient education, i

217 We identified factors associated with cardiac rehabilitation referral at discharge and perform

218 etic treatment, smoking cessation advice, or cardiac rehabilitation referral at discharge compared wi

219 Cardiac rehabilitation referral at discharge was less pr

220 hical logistic regression for the outcome of cardiac rehabilitation referral at discharge, clustered

221 for hospital-level interventions to improve cardiac rehabilitation referral rates after PCI.

222 Cardiac rehabilitation referral rates were 59.2% and 66.

223 Cardiac rehabilitation referral rates, and patient and i

224 Efforts to improve cardiac rehabilitation referral should focus on increasi

225 Cardiac rehabilitation referral was low (10.5%) but incr

226 Cardiac rehabilitation referral was reported in 48% (34

227 The strongest predictor of cardiac rehabilitation referral was the hospital perform

228 ermine factors independently associated with cardiac rehabilitation referral, which are currently not

229 h factors were independently associated with cardiac rehabilitation referral.

230 guideline-recommended pharmacotherapies, and cardiac rehabilitation referral.

231 ities were associated with decreased odds of cardiac rehabilitation referral.

232 al of these patient groups, global access to cardiac rehabilitation remains poor.

233 Cardiac rehabilitation remains the 'Cinderella' of treat

234 Medical directors of cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention (CR/SP) prog

235 Pulmonary Rehabilitation recognize that all cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention programs sho

236 d outcomes in each of the core components of cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention programs, in

237 r cardiovascular disease patients in phase I cardiac rehabilitation, sedentary behaviour time might i

238 income and middle-income countries, in which cardiac rehabilitation services are scarce, and scalable

239 ubstantial morbidity and mortality benefits, cardiac rehabilitation services are vastly underutilized

240 ls, including virtual and remote delivery of cardiac rehabilitation services, has expanded the ways t

241 5+ were significantly less likely to receive cardiac rehabilitation services.

242 161 elderly patients who attended at least 1 cardiac rehabilitation session between January 1, 2000,

243 e relationship existed between the number of cardiac rehabilitation sessions and long-term outcomes.

244 xercise as adjunctive therapy delivered in a cardiac rehabilitation setting results in significant re

245 igital technology generally and when used in cardiac rehabilitation specifically.

246 Resource provision complied with national cardiac rehabilitation standards.

247 utive patients with CHD who were referred to cardiac rehabilitation, stratified as Low (</=25% in men

248 rted Environment to Increase Exercise During Cardiac Rehabilitation Study) is a prospective, randomiz

249 income mediated through nonparticipation in cardiac rehabilitation, suboptimal statin management, a

250 imited insurance coverage for HF patients in cardiac rehabilitation, tailoring of exercise programs t

251 elivered in isolation or as part of a larger cardiac rehabilitation telehealth program and highlights

252 ients in addition to hospital-based exercise cardiac rehabilitation, their physical activity levels a

253 Even for those patients who participate in cardiac rehabilitation, there is the potential to better

254 tober 2020 proceedings of the Million Hearts Cardiac Rehabilitation Think Tank: Accelerating New Care

255 Control patients did not receive any form of cardiac rehabilitation throughout the study period.

256 lockade and an exercise prescription through cardiac rehabilitation to further improve and sustain cl

257 sting knowledge and rationale for the use of cardiac rehabilitation to provide structured exercise an

258 for ischemic heart disease were assessed for cardiac rehabilitation treatment.

259 -label randomized clinical trial (the Hybrid Cardiac Rehabilitation Trial [HYCARET]) with blinded out

260 Cardiac rehabilitation was defined by Current Procedural

261 e prescription or prior to the initiation of cardiac rehabilitation was Rarely Appropriate except for

262 sits after discharge and who participated in cardiac rehabilitation were more likely to take high-int

263 global approach to secondary prevention and cardiac rehabilitation, which mitigates this burden, has

264 ns unclear, both exercise and multifactorial cardiac rehabilitation with psychosocial interventions h

265 Six months of home-based cardiac rehabilitation with telemonitoring and coaching

266 iplatelet agent prescriptions, and attending cardiac rehabilitation within 30 days following discharg

267 ine physical activity of patients initiating cardiac rehabilitation within a clinical trial to potent