Cardiac rehabilitation underutilization: Missed opportunities in comprehensive cardiac care

Cardiovascular Rehabilitation With a WCD-Data From the CR3 Study (Cardiac Rehab Retrospective Review)

PURPOSE

Patients at risk for sudden cardiac death may temporarily need a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD). Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has a class I recommendation in patients with cardiac disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of undergoing CR with a WCD.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients with a WCD who completed a CR in Austria (2010-2020).

RESULTS

Patients (n = 55, 60 ± 11 yr, 16% female) with a median baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 36 (30, 41)% at the start of CR showed a daily WCD wearing duration of 23.4 (22, 24) hr. There were 2848 (8 [1, 26]/patient) automatic alarms and 340 (3 [1, 7]/patient) manual alarms generated. No shocks were delivered by the WCD during the CR period. One patient had recurrent hemodynamically tolerated ventricular tachycardias that were controlled with antiarrhythmic drugs.No severe WCD-associated adverse events occurred during the CR stay of a median 28 (28, 28) d. The fabric garment and the device setting needed to be adjusted in two patients to diminish inappropriate automatic alarms. Left ventricular ejection fraction after CR increased significantly to 42 (30, 44)% ( P < .001). Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy was stopped due to LVEF restitution in 53% of patients. In 36% of patients an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was implanted, 6% had LVEF improvement after coronary revascularization, one patient received a heart transplantation (2%), two patients discontinued WCD treatment at their own request (4%).

CONCLUSION

Completing CR is feasible and safe for WCD patients and may contribute positively to the restitution of cardiac function.

Trends in Guideline-Driven Revascularization in Diabetic Patients with Multivessel Coronary Heart Disease

In diabetes patients with chronic ≥3 vessel disease, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) holds a class I recommendation in the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) 2011 guidelines, and this classification has not changed to date. Much of the literature has focused upon whether CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) produces better outcomes; there is a paucity of data comparing the odds of receiving these procedures. A secondary analysis was conducted in a de-identified database comprised of 30,482 patients satisfying the entry criteria. Odds of occurrence (CABG, PCI) were determined as the binary dependent variable in period 1, (17 October 2009 through 31 December 2011), and period 2 (1 January 2013 through 16 March 2015), before and after the 2011 guidelines, while controlling for gender, ethnicity/race, and ischemic heart disease as covariates. The odds of performing CABG rather than PCI in period 2 were not statistically significantly different than in period 1 (p = 0.400). The logistic regression model chi-square statistic was statistically significant, with χ₂ (7) = 308.850, p < 0.0001. The Wald statistic showed that ethnicity/race (African American, Caucasian, Hispanic and Other), gender, and heart disease contributed significantly to the prediction model with p < 0.05, but ethnicity ‘Unknown’ did not. The odds of CABG versus PCI in period 2 were 0.98 times those in period 1 95% confidence interval (CI) = (0.925, 1.032), statistically controlling for covariates. There was no significant rise in the odds of undergoing a CABG among this dataset of high-risk patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary heart disease. Modern practice has evolved regarding patient choice and additional variables that impact the final revascularization method employed. The degree to which odds of occurrence of procedures are a reliable surrogate for provider compliance with guidelines remains uncertain.