LAUSR

Improvement in functional capacity (FC) is one of the most notable benefits patients experience after cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and it is highly important as low levels of FC are associated with a high risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease and all cause mortality. To study the changes in FC after a CR program in Spain and to define the profile of those patients that improve. Single-centre observational study from 793 patients with ischaemic heart disease (15.3% women, age 61.79±10.70 years), participating in a CR program from 2015 to 2020 with a stress test performed, both at beginning of CR (conventional stress test, n=436; CPET, n=340; imaging stress test, n=17) and at end of CR (conventional stress test, n=468; CPET, n=322; imaging stress test, n=3). A comparative analysis of patients with “improved FC” and “non-improved FC” at end of CR, was performed. Relevant clinical improvement was defined as a 10% increase of VO2, in accordance with reviewed literature. Additionally, a descriptive analysis of patient exercise capacity parameters was performed at beginning of CR and at end CR, for the complete sample. A total of 1586 exercise tests were analysed. All exercise capacity parameters analysed showed significant improvement at end of CR, with p values <0.01, (Graph 1). Clinically relevant FC improvement was observed in 54.2% of patients that participated in CR; 45.5% of all women and 55.8% of all men. Patients that improved FC completed significantly more CR training sessions (p<0.05) than those who did not improve FC (21.39±4.53, 20.37±5.84). Those who improved FC were significantly older (62.74±10.90), presented with significantly more STEMI (n=197, 45.8%), and achieved significantly less METS (7.42±3.01) at baseline, (p<0.05, Table 1). Our CR rehabilitation program improves patient's functional capacity significantly. Patients with clinically relevant functional capacity improvement, are significantly older patients with STEMI as diagnosis at CV event, complete significantly more CR training sessions and showed significantly worst physical performance (METS) at baseline. Type of funding sources: None.