Lindsey Anderson

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the most common cause of death globally, although mortality rates are falling. Psychological symptoms are prevalent for people with CHD, and many psychological treatments are offered following cardiac events or procedures with the aim of improving health and outcomes. This is an update of a Cochrane systematic review previously published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of psychological interventions (alone or with cardiac rehabilitation) compared with usual care (including cardiac rehabilitation where available) for people with CHD on total mortality and cardiac mortality; cardiac morbidity; and participant-reported psychological outcomes of levels of depression, anxiety, and stress; and to explore potential study-level predictors of the effectiveness of psychological interventions in this population. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the previous Cochrane Review searches by searching the following databases on 27 April 2016: CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), and CINAHL (EBSCO). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions compared to usual care, administered by trained staff, and delivered to adults with a specific diagnosis of CHD. We selected only studies estimating the independent effect of the psychological component, and with a minimum follow-up of six months. The study population comprised of adults after: a myocardial infarction (MI), a revascularisation procedure (coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)), and adults with angina or angiographically defined coronary artery disease (CAD). RCTs had to report at least one of the following outcomes: mortality (total- or cardiac-related); cardiac morbidity (MI, revascularisation procedures); or participant-reported levels of depression, anxiety, or stress. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of all references for eligibility. A lead review author extracted study data, which a second review author checked. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: This review included 35 studies which randomised 10,703 people with CHD (14 trials and 2577 participants added to this update). The population included mainly men (median 77.0%) and people post-MI (mean 65.7%) or after undergoing a revascularisation procedure (mean 27.4%). The mean age of participants within trials ranged from 53 to 67 years. Overall trial reporting was poor, with around a half omitting descriptions of randomisation sequence generation, allocation concealment procedures, or the blinding of outcome assessments. The length of follow-up ranged from six months to 10.7 years (median 12 months). Most studies (23/35) evaluated multifactorial interventions, which included therapies with multiple therapeutic components. Ten studies examined psychological interventions targeted at people with a confirmed psychopathology at baseline and two trials recruited people with a psychopathology or another selecting criterion (or both). Of the remaining 23 trials, nine studies recruited unselected participants from cardiac populations reporting some level of psychopathology (3.8% to 53% with depressive symptoms, 32% to 53% with anxiety), 10 studies did not report these characteristics, and only three studies excluded people with psychopathology.Moderate quality evidence showed no risk reduction for total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.05; participants = 7776; studies = 23) or revascularisation procedures (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.11) with psychological therapies compared to usual care. Low quality evidence found no risk reduction for non-fatal MI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.05), although there was a 21% reduction in cardiac mortality (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.98). There was also low or very low quality evidence that psychological interventions improved participant-reported levels of depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15; GRADE = low), anxiety (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.09; GRADE = low), and stress (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.24; GRADE = very low).There was substantial statistical heterogeneity for all psychological outcomes but not clinical outcomes, and there was evidence of small-study bias for one clinical outcome (cardiac mortality: Egger test P = 0.04) and one psychological outcome (anxiety: Egger test P = 0.012). Meta-regression exploring a limited number of intervention characteristics found no significant predictors of intervention effects for total mortality and cardiac mortality. For depression, psychological interventions combined with adjunct pharmacology (where deemed appropriate) for an underlying psychological disorder appeared to be more effective than interventions that did not (β = -0.51, P = 0.003). For anxiety, interventions recruiting participants with an underlying psychological disorder appeared more effective than those delivered to unselected populations (β = -0.28, P = 0.03). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane Review found that for people with CHD, there was no evidence that psychological treatments had an effect on total mortality, the risk of revascularisation procedures, or on the rate of non-fatal MI, although the rate of cardiac mortality was reduced and psychological symptoms (depression, anxiety, or stress) were alleviated; however, the GRADE assessments suggest considerable uncertainty surrounding these effects. Considerable uncertainty also remains regarding the people who would benefit most from treatment (i.e. people with or without psychological disorders at baseline) and the specific components of successful interventions. Future large-scale trials testing the effectiveness of psychological therapies are required due to the uncertainty within the evidence. Future trials would benefit from testing the impact of specific (rather than multifactorial) psychological interventions for participants with CHD, and testing the targeting of interventions on different populations (i.e. people with CHD, with or without psychopathologies).

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the single most common cause of death globally. However, with falling CHD mortality rates, an increasing number of people live with CHD and may need support to manage their symptoms and prognosis. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) aims to improve the health and outcomes of people with CHD. This is an update of a Cochrane systematic review previously published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of exercise-based CR (exercise training alone or in combination with psychosocial or educational interventions) compared with usual care on mortality, morbidity and HRQL in patients with CHD.To explore the potential study level predictors of the effectiveness of exercise-based CR in patients with CHD. SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane review, by searching Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2014) from December 2009 to July 2014. We also searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Science Citation Index Expanded (December 2009 to July 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise-based interventions with at least six months' follow-up, compared with a no exercise control. The study population comprised men and women of all ages who have had a myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or who have angina pectoris, or coronary artery disease. We included RCTs that reported at least one of the following outcomes: mortality, MI, revascularisations, hospitalisations, health-related quality of life (HRQL), or costs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on the above inclusion and exclusion criteria. One author extracted data from the included trials and assessed their risk of bias; a second review author checked data. We stratified meta-analysis by the duration of follow up of trials, i.e. short-term: 6 to 12 months, medium-term: 13 to 36 months, and long-term: > 3 years. MAIN RESULTS: This review included 63 trials which randomised 14,486 people with CHD. This latest update identified 16 new trials (3872 participants). The population included predominantly post-MI and post-revascularisation patients and the mean age of patients within the trials ranged from 47.5 to 71.0 years. Women accounted for fewer than 15% of the patients recruited. Overall trial reporting was poor, although there was evidence of an improvement in quality of reporting in more recent trials.As we found no significant difference in the impact of exercise-based CR on clinical outcomes across follow-up, we focused on reporting findings pooled across all trials at their longest follow-up (median 12 months). Exercise-based CR reduced cardiovascular mortality compared with no exercise control (27 trials; risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.86). There was no reduction in total mortality with CR (47 trials, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04). The overall risk of hospital admissions was reduced with CR (15 trials; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.96) but there was no significant impact on the risk of MI (36 trials; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.04), CABG (29 trials; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16) or PCI (18 trials; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.04).There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity across trials for all event outcomes, and there was evidence of small study bias for MI and hospitalisation, but no other outcome. Predictors of clinical outcomes were examined across the longest follow-up of studies using univariate meta-regression. Results show that benefits in outcomes were independent of participants' CHD case mix (proportion of patients with MI), type of CR (exercise only vs comprehensive rehabilitation) dose of exercise, length of follow-up, trial publication date, setting (centre vs home-based), study location (continent), sample size or risk of bias.Given the heterogeneity in outcome measures and reporting methods, meta-analysis was not undertaken for HRQL. In five out of 20 trials reporting HRQL using validated measures, there was evidence of significant improvement in most or all of the sub-scales with exercise-based CR compared to control at follow-up. Four trial-based economic evaluation studies indicated exercise-based CR to be a potentially cost-effective use of resources in terms of gain in quality-adjusted life years.The quality of the evidence for outcomes reported in the review was rated using the GRADE method. The quality of the evidence varied widely by outcome and ranged from low to moderate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane review supports the conclusions of the previous version of this review that, compared with no exercise control, exercise-based CR reduces the risk of cardiovascular mortality but not total mortality. We saw a significant reduction in the risk of hospitalisation with CR but not in the risk of MI or revascularisation. We identified further evidence supporting improved HRQL with exercise-based CR. More recent trials were more likely to be well reported and include older and female patients. However, the population studied in this review still consists predominantly of lower risk individuals following MI or revascularisation. Further well conducted RCTs are needed to assess the impact of exercise-based CR in higher risk CHD groups and also those presenting with stable angina. These trials should include validated HRQL outcome measures, explicitly report clinical event outcomes including mortality and hospital admissions, and assess costs and cost-effectiveness.

Background Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home‐based cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2015. Objectives To compare the effect of home‐based and supervised centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, exercise‐capacity, health‐related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease. Search methods We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) on 21 September 2016. We also searched two clinical trials registers as well as previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials, including parallel group, cross‐over or quasi‐randomised designs) that compared centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, gymnasium, sports centre) with home‐based programmes in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure or who had undergone revascularisation. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on pre‐defined inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third review author. Two authors independently extracted outcome data and study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE principles and a Summary of findings table was created. Main results We included six new studies (624 participants) for this update, which now includes a total of 23 trials that randomised a total of 2890 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Participants had an acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation or heart failure. A number of studies provided insufficient detail to enable assessment of potential risk of bias, in particular, details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequencing and blinding of outcome assessment were poorly reported. No evidence of a difference was seen between home‐ and centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation in clinical primary outcomes up to 12 months of follow up: total mortality (relative risk (RR) = 1.19, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.16; participants = 1505; studies = 11/comparisons = 13; very low quality evidence), exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = ‐0.13, 95% CI ‐0.28 to 0.02; participants = 2255; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence), or health‐related quality of life up to 24 months (not estimable). Trials were generally of short duration, with only three studies reporting outcomes beyond 12 months (exercise capacity: SMD 0.11, 95% CI ‐0.01 to 0.23; participants = 1074; studies = 3; moderate quality evidence). However, there was evidence of marginally higher levels of programme completion (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08; participants = 2615; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence) by home‐based participants. Authors' conclusions This update supports previous conclusions that home‐ and centre‐based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be similarly effective in improving clinical and health‐related quality of life outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding supports the continued expansion of evidence‐based, home‐based cardiac rehabilitation programmes. The choice of participating in a more traditional and supervised centre‐based programme or a home‐based programme may reflect local availability and consider the preference of the individual patient. Further data are needed to determine whether the effects of home‐ and centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation reported in the included short‐term trials can be confirmed in the longer term and need to consider adequately powered non‐inferiority or equivalence study designs.

Background Although psychological interventions are recommended for the management of coronary heart disease (CHD), there remains considerable uncertainty regarding their effectiveness. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions for CHD. Methods The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched to April 2016. Retrieved papers, systematic reviews and trial registries were hand-searched. We included RCTs with at least 6 months of follow-up, comparing the direct effects of psychological interventions to usual care for patients following myocardial infarction or revascularisation or with a diagnosis of angina pectoris or CHD defined by angiography. Two authors screened titles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Studies were pooled using random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression was used to explore study-level predictors. Results Thirty-five studies with 10,703 participants (median follow-up 12 months) were included. Psychological interventions led to a reduction in cardiovascular mortality (rfcelative risk 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63 to 0.98), although no effects were observed for total mortality, myocardial infarction or revascularisation. Psychological interventions improved depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference [SMD] -0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15), anxiety (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.09) and stress (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.24) compared with controls. Conclusions We found that psychological intervention improved psychological symptoms and reduced cardiac mortality for people with CHD. However, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of these effects and the specific techniques most likely to benefit people with different presentations of CHD.