The prognostic effect of multi-component cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in the modern era of statins and acute revascularisation remains controversial. Focusing on actual clinical practice, the aim was to evaluate the effect of CR on total mortality and other clinical endpoints after an acute coronary event. Structured review and meta-analysis. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), retrospective controlled cohort studies (rCCSs) and prospective controlled cohort studies (pCCSs) evaluating patients after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or mixed populations with coronary artery disease (CAD) were included, provided the index event was in 1995 or later. Out of n = 18,534 abstracts, 25 studies were identified for final evaluation (RCT: n = 1; pCCS: n = 7; rCCS: n = 17), including n = 219,702 patients (after ACS: n = 46,338; after CABG: n = 14,583; mixed populations: n = 158,781; mean follow-up: 40 months). Heterogeneity in design, biometrical assessment of results and potential confounders was evident. CCSs evaluating ACS patients showed a significantly reduced mortality for CR participants (pCCS: hazard ratio (HR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20–0.69; rCCS: HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49–0.84; odds ratio 0.20, 95% CI 0.08–0.48), but the single RCT fulfilling Cardiac Rehabilitation Outcome Study (CROS) inclusion criteria showed neutral results. CR participation was also associated with reduced mortality after CABG (rCCS: HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54–0.70) and in mixed CAD populations. CR participation after ACS and CABG is associated with reduced mortality even in the modern era of CAD treatment. However, the heterogeneity of study designs and CR programmes highlights the need for defining internationally accepted standards in CR delivery and scientific evaluation.

Background: Although cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR) is well accepted in general, CR-attendance and delivery still considerably vary between the European countries. Moreover, clinical and prognostic effects of CR are not well established for a variety of cardiovascular diseases. Methods: The guidelines address all aspects of CR including indications, contents and delivery. By processing the guidelines, every step was externally supervised and moderated by independent members of the “Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany” (AWMF). Four meta-analyses were performed to evaluate the prognostic effect of CR after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), after coronary bypass grafting (CABG), in patients with severe chronic systolic heart failure (HFrEF), and to define the effect of psychological interventions during CR. All other indications for CR-delivery were based on a predefined semi-structured literature search and recommendations were established by a formal consenting process including all medical societies involved in guideline generation. Results: Multidisciplinary CR is associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality in patients after ACS and after CABG, whereas HFrEF-patients (left ventricular ejection fraction <40%) especially benefit in terms of exercise capacity and health-related quality of life. Patients with other cardiovascular diseases also benefit from CR-participation, but the scientific evidence is less clear. There is increasing evidence that the beneficial effect of CR strongly depends on “treatment intensity” including medical supervision, treatment of cardiovascular risk factors, information and education, and a minimum of individually adapted exercise volume. Additional psychologic interventions should be performed on the basis of individual needs. Conclusions: These guidelines reinforce the substantial benefit of CR in specific clinical indications, but also describe remaining deficits in CR-delivery in clinical practice as well as in CR-science with respect to methodology and presentation.

Background: Scientific guidelines have been developed to update and harmonize exercise based cardiac rehabilitation (ebCR) in German speaking countries. Key recommendations for ebCR indications have recently been published in part 1 of this journal. The present part 2 updates the evidence with respect to contents and delivery of ebCR in clinical practice, focusing on exercise training (ET), psychological interventions (PI), patient education (PE). In addition, special patients’ groups and new developments, such as telemedical (Tele) or home-based ebCR, are discussed as well. Methods: Generation of evidence and search of literature have been described in part 1. Results: Well documented evidence confirms the prognostic significance of ET in patients with coronary artery disease. Positive clinical effects of ET are described in patients with congestive heart failure, heart valve surgery or intervention, adults with congenital heart disease, and peripheral arterial disease. Specific recommendations for risk stratification and adequate exercise prescription for continuous-, interval-, and strength training are given in detail. PI when added to ebCR did not show significant positive effects in general. There was a positive trend towards reduction in depressive symptoms for “distress management” and “lifestyle changes”. PE is able to increase patients’ knowledge and motivation, as well as behavior changes, regarding physical activity, dietary habits, and smoking cessation. The evidence for distinct ebCR programs in special patients’ groups is less clear. Studies on Tele-CR predominantly included low-risk patients. Hence, it is questionable, whether clinical results derived from studies in conventional ebCR may be transferred to Tele-CR. Conclusions: ET is the cornerstone of ebCR. Additional PI should be included, adjusted to the needs of the individual patient. PE is able to promote patients self-management, empowerment, and motivation. Diversity-sensitive structures should be established to interact with the needs of special patient groups and gender issues. Tele-CR should be further investigated as a valuable tool to implement ebCR more widely and effectively.

Indikationen zur kardiologischen Rehabilitation Zur Indikation und Durchführung der kardiologischen Rehabilitation (KardReha) ist erstmals eine evidenzbasierte Leitlinie auf S3-Niveau publiziert worden [1]. Neben der federführenden DGPR wurde diese Leitlinie von 6 weiteren deutschen Fachgesellschaften (DGK, DGTHG, DGSP, DKPM, DGRW, BNK) sowie erstmals auch von den kardiologischen Gesellschaften aus Österreich (ÖKG) und der Schweiz (CPRS) konsentiert. Aufgrund der Bedeutung der beruflichen Wiedereingliederung für Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen war zudem die Deutsche Rentenversicherung (DRV) an der Erstellung der Leitlinie beteiligt. Über die Deutsche Herzstiftung wurden ebenfalls erstmals Patientenvertreter im Sinne einer partizipativen Entscheidungsfindung eingebunden. Neben Patienten mit koronarer Herzkrankheit (KHK) und Patienten mit systolischer Herzinsuffizienz (HFrEF) wurden weitere, auch seltenere Reha-Indikationen evaluiert. Hierzu zählen Patienten nach Herztransplantation oder mit Herzunterstützungssystem (VAD), nach Aortendissektion, nach Myokarditis sowie Patienten mit peripherer arterieller Verschlusskrankheit (paVK) und Erwachsene mit angeborenen Herzfehlern (EMAH). Durchführung der kardiologischen Rehabilitation Für alle Indikationen wird die Evidenz zur Wirksamkeit der multidisziplinären Therapie in der KardReha (medizinische Betreuung, körperliches Training, Lebensstiländerungen, psychosoziale Interventionen und Schulungen) dargestellt. Zudem evaluiert die Leitlinie die etablierten Nachsorgeprogramme nach Durchführung einer KardReha (z. B. ambulante Herzgruppen, IRENA) [1]. An evidence based clinical guideline for cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has been published in collaboration between the German Association of Cardiac Rehabilitation and Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases (DGPR) and the working groups of prevention and rehabilitation of the cardiac societies of Austria (ÖKG) and Switzerland (CPRS). This guideline has been consented by relevant medical societies in Germany (cardiologists, cardiac surgeans, sports medicine, psychosomatic medicine, rehabilitation scientists). In addition, patients suffering from cardiovascular diseases were involved to emphasize shared decision making in the recommendations. As return to work is a major goal of CR, German pension insurance (DRV-Bund) was associated in the development of this guideline as well. Evidence of CR was evaluated by systematic review of the literature and new meta-analysis performed and published by the guideline committee for patients with coronary artery disease and systolic heart failure. In addition, psychosocial intervention during CR was evaluated by new meta-analysis as well. Other indications for CR and interventions during CR were evaluated by literature review and were consented between collaborating medical societies. This guideline published on 7^th of January 2020 in German language (www.awmf.org). Publication Date: 29 January 2021 (online) © 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany