Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adult patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 02 12; 2:CD011828.CD
An effective way of preventing sudden cardiac death is the use of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). In spite of the potential mortality benefits of receiving an ICD device, psychological problems experienced by patients after receiving an ICD may negatively impact their health-related quality of life, and lead to increased readmission to hospital and healthcare needs, loss of productivity and employment earnings, and increased morbidity and mortality. Evidence from other heart conditions suggests that cardiac rehabilitation should consist of both exercise training and psychoeducational interventions; such rehabilitation may benefit patients with an ICD. Prior systematic reviews of cardiac rehabilitation have excluded participants with an ICD. A systematic review was therefore conducted to assess the evidence for the use of exercise-based intervention programmes following implantation of an ICD.
To assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes (exercise-based interventions alone or in combination with psychoeducational components) compared with control (group of no intervention, treatment as usual or another rehabilitation programme with no physical exercise element) in adults with an ICD.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and four other databases on 30 August 2018 and three trials registers on 14 November 2017. We also undertook reference checking, citation searching and contacted study authors for missing data.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) if they investigated exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation interventions compared with no intervention, treatment as usual or another rehabilitation programme. The trial participants were adults (aged 18 years or older), who had been treated with an ICD regardless of type or indication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and health-related quality of life. The secondary outcomes were exercise capacity, antitachycardia pacing, shock, non-serious adverse events, employment or loss of employment and costs and cost-effectiveness. Risk of systematic errors (bias) was assessed by evaluation of predefined bias risk domains. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity were assessed. Meta-analyses were undertaken using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.
We identified eight trials published from 2004 to 2017 randomising a total of 1730 participants, with mean intervention duration of 12 weeks. All eight trials were judged to be at overall high risk of bias and effect estimates are reported at the end of the intervention with a follow-up range of eight to 24 weeks.Seven trials reported all-cause mortality, but deaths only occurred in one trial with no evidence of a difference between exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation and control (risk ratio (RR) 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 21.26; participants = 196; trials = 1; quality of evidence: low). There was also no evidence of a difference in serious adverse events between exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation and control (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.44; participants = 356; trials = 2; quality of evidence: low). Due to the variation in reporting of health-related quality of life outcomes, it was not possible to pool data. However, the five trials reporting health-related quality of life at the end of the intervention, each showed little or no evidence of a difference between exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation and control.For secondary outcomes, there was evidence of a higher pooled exercise capacity (peak VO2) at the end of the intervention (mean difference (MD) 0.91 mL/kg/min, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.21; participants = 1485; trials = 7; quality of evidence: very low) favouring exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation, albeit there was evidence of substantial statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 78%). There was no evidence of a difference in the risk of requiring antitachycardia pacing (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.90; participants = 356; trials = 2; quality of evidence: moderate), appropriate shock (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.58; participants = 428; studies = 3; quality of evidence: low) or inappropriate shock (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.51; participants = 160; studies = 1; quality of evidence: moderate).