↓ Skip to main content

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in heart transplant recipients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
60 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in heart transplant recipients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012264.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindsey Anderson, Tricia T Nguyen, Christian H Dall, Laura Burgess, Charlene Bridges, Rod S Taylor

Abstract

Heart transplantation is considered to be the gold standard treatment for selected patients with end-stage heart disease when medical therapy has been unable to halt progression of the underlying pathology. Evidence suggests that aerobic exercise training may be effective in reversing the pathophysiological consequences associated with cardiac denervation and prevent immunosuppression-induced adverse effects in heart transplant recipients. To determine the effectiveness and safety of exercise-based rehabilitation on the mortality, hospital admissions, adverse events, exercise capacity, health-related quality of life, return to work and costs for people after heart transplantation. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Web of Science Core Collection (Thomson Reuters) to June 2016. We also searched two clinical trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel group, cross-over or cluster design, which compared exercise-based interventions with (i) no exercise control (ii) a different dose of exercise training (e.g. low- versus high-intensity exercise training); or (iii) an active intervention (i.e. education, psychological intervention). The study population comprised adults aged 18 years or over who had received a heart transplant. Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on pre-specified inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or by involving a third person. Two review authors extracted outcome data from the included trials and assessed their risk of bias. One review author extracted study characteristics from included studies and a second author checked them against the trial report for accuracy. We included 10 RCTs that involved a total of 300 participants whose mean age was 54.4 years. Women accounted for fewer than 25% of all study participants. Nine trials which randomised 284 participants to receive exercise-based rehabilitation (151 participants) or no exercise (133 participants) were included in the main analysis. One cross-over RCT compared high-intensity interval training with continued moderate-intensity training in 16 participants. We reported findings for all trials at their longest follow-up (median 12 weeks).Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation increased exercise capacity (VO2peak) compared with no exercise control (MD 2.49 mL/kg/min, 95% CI 1.63 to 3.36; N = 284; studies = 9; moderate quality evidence). There was evidence from one trial that high-intensity interval exercise training was more effective in improving exercise capacity than continuous moderate-intensity exercise (MD 2.30 mL/kg/min, 95% CI 0.59 to 4.01; N = 16; 1 study). Four studies reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured using SF-36, Profile of Quality of Life in the Chronically Ill (PLC) and the World Health Organization Quality Of Life (WHOQoL) - BREF. Due to the variation in HRQoL outcomes and methods of reporting we were unable to meta-analyse results across studies, but there was no evidence of a difference between exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation and control in 18 of 21 HRQoL domains reported, or between high and moderate intensity exercise in any of the 10 HRQoL domains reported. One adverse event was reported by one study.Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation improves exercise capacity, but exercise was found to have no impact on health-related quality of life in the short-term (median 12 weeks follow-up), in heart transplant recipients whose health is stable.There was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity across trials for exercise capacity and no evidence of small study bias. The overall risk of bias in included studies was judged as low or unclear; more than 50% of included studies were assessed at unclear risk of bias with respect to allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors and declaration of conflicts of interest. Evidence quality was assessed as moderate according to GRADE criteria. We found moderate quality evidence suggesting that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation improves exercise capacity, and that exercise has no impact on health-related quality of life in the short-term (median 12 weeks follow-up), in heart transplant recipients. Cardiac rehabilitation appears to be safe in this population, but long-term follow-up data are incomplete and further good quality and adequately-powered trials are needed to demonstrate the longer-term benefits of exercise on safety and impact on both clinical and patient-related outcomes, such as health-related quality of life, and healthcare costs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 186 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 40 22%
Student > Bachelor 33 18%
Student > Master 33 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Researcher 16 9%
Other 44 24%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 51 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 48 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 20%
Psychology 14 8%
Sports and Recreations 13 7%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2018.
All research outputs
#469,209
of 13,567,331 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,420
of 10,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,634
of 262,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#45
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,567,331 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,731 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.