4.7 Article

Impact of Rehabilitation on Outcomes after TAVI: A Preliminary Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 7, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm7100326

Keywords

cardiac rehabilitation; TAVI; mortality; aortic stenosis; heart valve

Funding

  1. Edwards Lifesciences
  2. Nyon Switzerland of the Institute for Pharmacology and Preventive Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The benefit of rehabilitation in elderly patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for treatment of severe aortic stenosis is unknown. The impact of declining rehabilitation programs on mortality has also not been described. In a longitudinal cohort study of 1056 patients undergoing elective TAVI between 2008 and 2016, logistic regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between treatment modality and outcome according to whether or not patients participated in a three-week rehabilitation program after TAVI. Subgroup analyses included patient outcome separated according to cardiac, geriatric, or no rehabilitation. A total of 1017 patients survived until hospital discharge (96.3%) and were offered rehabilitation, 366 patients (36.0%) declined to undergo rehabilitation, with the remaining patients undergoing either cardiac (n = 435; 42.8%) or geriatric rehabilitation (n = 216; 21.2%). Mortality at six months was lower for patients receiving rehabilitation compared with those who had not (adjusted odds ratio (OR): 0.49; 95% confidence interval (confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-0.94; p = 0.032). Sub-analysis showed the benefit of cardiac (adjusted OR: 0.31; 95% CI 0.14-0.71, p = 0.006), but not geriatric rehabilitation (adjusted OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.37-1.85, p = 0.65). A program of rehabilitation after TAVI has the potential to reduce mortality. Future studies should focus on health-orientated behavior and identifying risk factors for declining rehabilitation programs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available