ArticleGlobal heart2025
Uptake and Effectiveness of Outpatient vs. Residential Cardiac Rehabilitation After Myocardial Infarction: A Nationwide Analysis.
Article in Global heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: To estimate the participation in, and the comparative effectiveness of, short-term residential and comprehensive outpatient cardiac rehabilitation (CR), after the latter was introduced in Slovenia by establishing dedicated regional CR centers. Methods: We extracted and analyzed data on all patients hospitalized for myocardial infarction in Slovenia ( Results: Of the 11,815 eligible patients (event-free after 180-day landmark), 3819 (32.3%) attended CR. Nation-wide CR participation rates increased both in level (9.7%, 95% CI 6.3-3.1) and in trend (0.41% per month, 95% CI 0.22-0.60) after outpatient CR was introduced in 2017. After propensity score-based adjustment, participation in either CR was associated with lower event rates (12.8%, 17.2%, and 21.0% at 3-year follow-up for outpatient, residential, and no CR, respectively; Conclusions: Participation in either CR improves outcomes after myocardial infarction, but comprehensive outpatient CR conveys superior risk reductions, primarily through reduced cardiovascular hospitalizations. Lay Summary: Our study highlights the importance of expanding cardiac rehabilitation services (by setting up dedicated regional comprehensive outpatient centers) and provides new evidence on improved outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction, who undergo cardiac rehabilitation. While previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy and effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation, ours is the first to compare two distinctive cardiac rehabilitation modalities - comprehensive outpatient (introduced in 2017) and short-term residential (available throughout the study period 2015-2021).In our nationally representative population of patients after myocardial infarction ( Key Learning Points:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.