PP030 Socioeconomics Of Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION: The Guidelines for Rehabilitation in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease recommends convalescent cardiac rehabilitation (CR) as the standard treatment for patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (class I, evidence level B) (1). However, health economic evaluation of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is limited. METHODS: This systematic review, meta-analysis study elucidated the cost-effectiveness of CR in the short term. The target population in this study included convalescent and comprehensive CR patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), most with myocardial infarction (MI). We used mortality, life years (LY, expected life years), medical costs, and cost-effectiveness as the evaluation parameters in this analysis. We set medical costs in the analysis associated with testing, diagnosis, and treatment during the observation period related to CR. For cost-effectiveness analysis, we analyzed medical cost per LY. We examined the differences in effects for two comparisons (CR versus Usual Care, UC) using the Risk Ratio (RR) and Standardized Mean Difference (SMD). We assumed the standard deviation (SD) of cost effectiveness in this study by applying the error propagation. RESULTS: We reviewed fifty-nine studies and identified three that matched our selection criteria. The studies had the following characteristics: two randomized clinical trials and one systematic review/meta-analysis; a control that does not include exercise in patients with CAD; an observation period longer than 1 year; adapting medical costs, LY, cost/LY, and mortality as the evaluation index. In total, 129,272 patients were included. Meta-analysis results revealed that the CR arm significantly improved LY (SMD: -.78, 95 percent Confidence Interval (CI): -1.37, -.19) compared with UC. Similar to LY, the CR arm significantly improved the mortality (SMD: .57, 95 percent CI: .22, 1.47) compared with UC arm. Since medical costs showed a high tendency (SMD:.02, 95 percent CI: -.08, .13), cost/LY demonstrated no improvement (SMD: .00; 95 percent CI: -.17, .18). Substantial statistical heterogeneity was observed between the studies with respect to LY and cost/LY. CONCLUSIONS: While sufficient evidence to conclude health economic efficiency is not available at present, these results suggest that CR is not potentially cost-effective in the short term.