Article

A systematic review of economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation

Academic Programmes Division, Singapore Institute of Technology, 25 North Bridge Road, Singapore, Singapore. .
BMC Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 1.66). 08/2012; 12:243. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-243
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Cardiac rehabilitation (CR), a multidisciplinary program consisting of exercise, risk factor modification and psychosocial intervention, forms an integral part of managing patients after myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization surgery and percutaneous coronary interventions, as well as patients with heart failure (HF). This systematic review seeks to examine the cost-effectiveness of CR for patients with MI or HF and inform policy makers in Singapore on published cost-effectiveness studies on CR.
Electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, NHS EED, PEDro, CINAHL) were searched from inception to May 2010 for published economic studies. Additional references were identified through searching bibliographies of included studies. Two independent reviewers selected eligible publications based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Quality assessment of economic evaluations was undertaken using Drummond's checklist.
A total of 22 articles were selected for review. However five articles were further excluded because they were cost-minimization analyses, whilst one included patients with stroke. Of the final 16 articles, one article addressed both centre-based cardiac rehabilitation versus no rehabilitation, as well as home-based cardiac rehabilitation versus no rehabilitation. Therefore, nine studies compared cost-effectiveness between centre-based supervised CR and no CR; three studies examined that between centre- and home based CR; one between inpatient and outpatient CR; and four between home-based CR and no CR. These studies were characterized by differences in the study perspectives, economic study designs and time frames, as well as variability in clinical data and assumptions made on costs. Overall, the studies suggested that: (1) supervised centre-based CR was highly cost-effective and the dominant strategy when compared to no CR; (2) home-based CR was no different from centre-based CR; (3) no difference existed between inpatient and outpatient CR; and (4) home-based programs were generally cost-saving compared to no CR.
Overall, all the studies supported the implementation of CR for MI and HF. However, comparison across studies highlighted wide variability of CR program design and delivery. Policy makers need to exercise caution when generalizing these findings to the Singapore context.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Wai Pong Alan Wong, Jun 21, 2015
6 Followers
 · 
129 Views
  • Source
    • "The primary goals of OP-CR include reduction of modifiable risk factors as well as increasing functional capacity and quality of life. Outpatient CR is recommended by the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology Guidelines for a number of diagnoses including myocardial infarction (MI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. In 2014, OP-CR services were approved for patients with systolic HF by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services [11]. "
    04/2015; 61. DOI:10.1016/j.ijcha.2015.04.002
  • Source
    Heart, Lung and Circulation 07/2013; 22(7):553. DOI:10.1016/j.hlc.2013.04.015 · 1.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The traditional hospital-based model of cardiac rehabilitation faces substantial challenges, such as cost and accessibility. These challenges have led to the development of alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation in recent years. The aim of this study was to identify and critique evidence for the effectiveness of these alternative models. A total of 22 databases were searched to identify quantitative studies or systematic reviews of quantitative studies regarding the effectiveness of alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation. Included studies were appraised using a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool and the National Health and Medical Research Council's designations for Level of Evidence. The 83 included articles described interventions in the following broad categories of alternative models of care: multifactorial individualized telehealth, internet based, telehealth focused on exercise, telehealth focused on recovery, community- or home-based, and complementary therapies. Multifactorial individualized telehealth and community- or home-based cardiac rehabilitation are effective alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation, as they have produced similar reductions in cardiovascular disease risk factors compared with hospital-based programmes. While further research is required to address the paucity of data available regarding the effectiveness of alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation in rural, remote, and culturally and linguistically diverse populations, our review indicates there is no need to rely on hospital-based strategies alone to deliver effective cardiac rehabilitation. Local healthcare systems should strive to integrate alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation, such as brief telehealth interventions tailored to individual's risk factor profiles as well as community- or home-based programmes, in order to ensure there are choices available for patients that best fit their needs, risk factor profile, and preferences.
    08/2013; DOI:10.1177/2047487313501093
Show more