Outcomes and cost of women-focused cardiac rehabilitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Taslima Mamataz; Gabriela Lm Ghisi; Maureen Pakosh; Sherry L Grace

doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2022.01.008

Outcomes and cost of women-focused cardiac rehabilitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Maturitas. 2022 Jun:160:32-60. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2022.01.008. Epub 2022 Jan 29.

Authors

Taslima Mamataz¹, Gabriela Lm Ghisi², Maureen Pakosh³, Sherry L Grace⁴

Affiliations

¹ Faculty of Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
² KITE-Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
³ Library & Information Services, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
⁴ Faculty of Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada; KITE-Toronto Rehabilitation Institute & Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: sgrace@yorku.ca.

PMID: 35550706
DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2022.01.008

Abstract

Background: The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the effects of women-focused cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on patient outcomes and cost.

Methods: Medline, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus and Emcare were searched for articles from inception through to May 2020. Primary studies of any design were included, with adult females with any cardiac diseases. "Women-focused" CR comprised programs or sessions with >50% females, or 1-1 programming tailored to women's preferences. No studies were excluded on the basis of outcome. Two independent reviewers rated citations for potential inclusion, and one extracted data, including on quality, which was checked independently. Random-effects meta-analysis was used where there were ≥3 trials with the same outcome; certainty of evidence for these was determined based on GRADE. For other outcomes, SWiM was applied.

Results: 3498 unique citations were identified, of which 28 studies (52 papers) were included (3,697 participants; 11 trials). No meta-analysis could be performed for outcomes with "usual care" comparisons. Compared to "active comparison" group, women-focused CR had no meaningful additional effect on functional capacity. Women-focused CR meaningfully improved physical (mean difference [MD]=6.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]=3.14-9.59; I²=0%; moderate-quality evidence) and mental (MD=4.66, 95% CI=0.21-9.11; I²=36%; low-quality evidence) quality of life, as well as scores on seven of the eight SF-36 domains. Qualitatively, results showed women-focused CR was associated with lower morbidity, risk factors, and greater psychosocial well-being. No effect was observed for mortality. One study reported a favorable economic impact and another reported reduced sick days.

Conclusions: Women-focused CR is associated with clinical benefit, although there is mixed evidence and more research is needed.

Prospero registration: CRD42020189760.

Keywords: Cardiac rehabilitation; Heart disease risk factors; Mortality; Quality of life; Systematic review.

Publication types

Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review

MeSH terms

Cardiac Rehabilitation* / methods
Female
Humans
Male
Quality of Life
Risk Factors