Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation trials that used coronary atherosclerotic disease progression as the primary outcome

From: Cardiac rehabilitation: a comprehensive review

  

Results

Study

Follow-up duration

Control

Intervention

P *

Schuler et al [29]†

1 year (n = 36)

33% progression,

28% progression,

< 0.05

  

61% no change,

33% no change,

 
  

6% regression

39% regression

 

Niebauer et al [30]†

5 years (n = 25)

75% progression,

38% progression,

ns

  

13% no change,

38% no change,

 
  

13% regression

25% regression

 

Schuler et al [31]†

1 year (n = 113)

48% progression,

23% progression,

< 0.05

  

35% no change,

45% no change,

 
  

17% regression

33% regression

 

Niebauer et al [33]†

6 years

74% progression,

59% progression,

< 0.0001

  

26% no change,

22% no change,

 
  

0% regression

19% regression

 

The Lifestyle Heart Trial [34,35]‡

1 year (n = 41)

2.28 (-3.00 to 4.86) (n = 15)

-1.75 (-4.08 to 0.58) (n = 18)

0.02

  

(53% progression,

18% progression,

 
  

5% no change,

(0% no change,

 
  

42% regression)

82% regression)

 
 

5 years (n = 35)

11.77 (3.40–20.14) (n = 15)

-3.07 (-5.91 to -0.24) (n = 20)

0.001

SCRIP [36]§

4 years (n = 246)

-0.045 ± 0.073

-0.024 ± 0.067

0.02

  

(50% progression,

(50% progression,

 
  

20% no change,

18% no change,

 
  

10% regression,

20% regression,

 
  

21% mixed changes)

12% mixed changes)

 
  1. * Between-group comparisons; ns, not significant. † Progression, ≥ 10% decrease; no change, ≤ 10% change; regression, ≥ 10% increase in percent minimal diameter. Patient assigned an average score when multiple stenoses analyzed. ‡ Average percent diameter stenosis change from baseline; 186 lesions analyzed (77 control, 109 intervention) by quantitative coronary angiography. Results reported from participants completing a 5-year follow-up. § Absolute change in minimal diameter stenosis (mm) per year as assessed by quantitative coronary angiography.