4.7 Article

Cardiac Rehabilitation for Older Women with Heart Failure

Journal

JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE
Volume 12, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jpm12121980

Keywords

heart failure; cardiovascular rehabilitation; personalized treatment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that older female patients with heart failure undergoing cardiac rehabilitation had better prognosis compared to males. They also showed similar improvement in walking distance. However, females were more likely to achieve functional capacity levels predictive of improved survival.
Background: the role that sex plays in impacting cardiac rehabilitation (CR) outcomes remains an important gap in knowledge. Methods: we assessed sex differences in clinical and functional outcomes in 2345 older patients with heart failure (HF) admitted to inpatient CR. Three outcomes were considered: (1) the composite outcome of death during the index admission to CR or transfer to acute care; (2) three-year mortality; (3) change in six-minute walking distance (6MWD) from admission to discharge. Sex differences in outcomes were assessed using multivariable Cox or logistic regression models. Results: the hazard ratios of the composite outcome and of three-year mortality for females vs. males were 0.71 (95%CI:0.50-1.00; p = 0.049) and 0.68 (95%CI:0.59-0.79; p < 0.001), respectively. The standardized mean difference in 6MWD increase from admission to discharge between males and females was 0.10. The odds ratio of achieving an increase in 6MWD at discharge to values higher than the optimal sex-specific thresholds for predicting mortality for females vs. males was 2.21 (95%CI:1.53-3.20; p < 0.001). Conclusion: our findings suggest that older females with HF undergoing CR have better prognosis and garner similar improvement in 6MWD compared with their male counterparts. Nonetheless, females were more likely to achieve levels of functional capacity predictive of improved survival.

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