<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJTR</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2332-1822</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojtr.2014.24026</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJTR-51880</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Age-Dependency of Clinical Characteristics of Patients Participating Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Results from the German
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>oland</surname><given-names>Nebel</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Michael</surname><given-names>Marx</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Michael</surname><given-names>Geier</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Brigitte</surname><given-names>Buran-Kilian</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Taoufik</surname><given-names>Ouarrak</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff5"><sup>5</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Manju</surname><given-names>Guha</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff6"><sup>6</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gregor</surname><given-names>Sauer</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff7"><sup>7</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gerd</surname><given-names>Bönner</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff8"><sup>8</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Harry</surname><given-names>Hahmann</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff9"><sup>9</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ralf</surname><given-names>Jordan</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff10"><sup>10</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Michaela</surname><given-names>Julia Engelhard</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff11"><sup>11</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bernhard</surname><given-names>Rauch</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff5"><sup>5</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Birna</surname><given-names>Bjarnason-Wehrens</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff11"><sup>11</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff7"><addr-line>Helios Rhein Klinik, Duisburg, Germany</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff5"><addr-line>Stiftung Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Germany</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>SchwerpunktReha, Ambulante kardiologische Rehabilitation, Bonn, Germany</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff10"><addr-line>Kardiologische Gemeinschaftspraxis an der Rheinklinik, Duisburg, Germany</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff6"><addr-line>Reha-Klinik am Sendesaal, Bremen, Germany</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff8"><addr-line>Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Medicos.Osnabrück GmbH, Osnabrück, Germany</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff11"><addr-line>Deutsche Sporthochschule K&amp;amp;ouml;ln, Cologne, Germany</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Zentrum für Gef&amp;amp;auml;&amp;amp;szlig;medizin Bonn, KaRO GmbH Waldbr&amp;amp;ouml;l, Bonn, Germany</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff9"><addr-line>Klinik Schwabenland, Isny, Germany</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Ambulante Rehabilitation für Herzpatienten, Evangelisches Krankenhaus Bergisch Gladbach, 
Bergisch Gladbach, Germany</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>r.nebel@medicos-osnabrueck.de(ON)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>07</day><month>10</month><year>2014</year></pub-date><volume>02</volume><issue>04</issue><fpage>207</fpage><lpage>216</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>25</day>	<month>August</month>	<year>2014</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>26</day>	<month>September</month>	<year>2014</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>28</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2014</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Background: Cardiovascular rehabilitation in Germany traditionally is offered as inpatient service often located far from patient’s residence, and ambulatory rehabilitation still represents a minority. The German Registry of Ambulatory Cardiac Rehabilitation (KARREE) was designed to contribute to rehabilitation quality assurance and to evaluate clinical characteristics of patients participating in ambulatory rehabilitation centers. Methods: In four ambulatory rehabilitation centers 2989 patients were consecutively registered from 2008 to 2011 and evaluated with respect to social status, cardiovascular diagnoses and risk factors, psychological status, medication and short term clinical and social outcome. Results: Most patients referred to the ambulatory cardiac rehabilitation had an acute cardiovascular event, with patients after acute coronary syndrome representing the majority (59.9%). Female were strongly underrepresented (16.7%). Patient’s clinical characteristics varied with the age groups evaluated (&lt;50 years, 50 - 70 years, &gt; 70 years). Whereas the reported physical inactivity, overweight and cigarette smoking was declining with age, diabetes and hypertension significantly increased. Furthermore the reported and evaluated psychosocial stress was declining with age. Regarding the group of patients still employed, 43.5 % were estimated as fit for work directly at the end of the rehabilitation program, whereas a stepwise reintegration into employment was performed in 16.7%. The majority of patients were transferred to ambulatory heart groups or other forms of after care for stabilizing regular physical activity. Conclusions: The large variation of the characteristics of patients participating cardiac rehabilitation underscore the need of an individualized approach for a successful implementation of secondary prevention and reintegration of these patients into their social life.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Ambulatory Cardiac Rehabilitation</kwd><kwd> Cardiovascular Risk Factors</kwd><kwd> Acute Coronary Syndrome</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR) in Germany is controlled by a quality assurance program, which has been developed by the German pension funds (Deutsche Rentenversicherung, DRV) in the early nineties primarily concentrating on the structures and processes of the rehabilitation centers. Some years later the quantity and intensity of the multidisciplinary therapeutic interventions during CR were evaluated in addition and included in a benchmarking process [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref2">2</xref>] . Along with the implementation of this quality assurance program CR in Germany increasingly gained scientific interest by evaluating its short- and long-term effects on clinical outcome and secondary prevention measures [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref3">3</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref9">9</xref>] . However, as a result of the long tradition of rehabilitation clinics in Germany, these studies primarily evaluated inpatient CR. It was not before 1992 when the first model of a German ambulatory CR center was established at the Sporthochschule K&#246;ln [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref10">10</xref>] . This was followed by a variety of additional ambulatory CR projects [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref11">11</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref13">13</xref>] . In the meantime, ambulatory CR in Germany is officially supported by law and included into clinical routine. To guarantee minimal standards in equipment, staff and processes of ambulatory CR centers guidelines have been developed by the “Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft f&#252;r Rehabilitation” (BAR) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref14">14</xref>] . Due to the late development of ambulatory CR in Germany there was an additional need to scientifically evaluate this setting. Several smaller studies investigating a variety of characteristics and outcomes showed non inferiority of ambulatory CR in comparison to inpatients CR [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref15">15</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref18">18</xref>] . The purpose of the KARREE-registry was to describe patient’s characteristics and short-term clinical outcome during ambulatory CR in a large cohort of patients under all day conditions. Moreover, the special aim of this registry was to evaluate potential gender differences, and to characterize different age groups, who may need an individually adjusted rehabilitation care.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Methods</title><p>From 2008 until 2011 medical data of 2989 patients participating CR in four German ambulatory cardiovascular rehabilitation centers were consecutively evaluated for quality assurance evaluation.</p><p>CR-programs were standardized by following the BAR-guidelines and included 15 &#177; 2.9 active days of 4 - 6 hours each [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref14">14</xref>] . According to the BAR-guidelines the multidisciplinary CR-team consisted of cardiologists, sports scientists and physiotherapists, psychologists, dietary specialists, nurses and social workers. All patients had a basic diagnostic evaluation including laboratory screening, echocardiography, ECG, and a stress test ideally performed at the beginning and at the end of the rehabilitation program. The CR centers furthermore provided an emergency room with full equipment, emergency laboratory tests, 24 hours ECG monitoring, 24 hours blood pressure monitoring, duplex sonography of the vessels and psychological tests for evaluation of anxiety and depression.</p><p>The therapeutic program included endurance exercise training (ideally daily), dynamic strength training (two - three times a week), physiotherapy, nursing, relaxation practices, psychological interventions. The rehabilitation program also included regular visits, professional advice and education with respect to physical exercise in daily practice, healthy nutrition, weight loss, stop smoking and reduction of psychological stress. German rehabilitation centers are regularly tested by the German pension funds whether the individual rehabilitation programs in each center meet their standards.</p><p>For routine data acquisition an electronic case report form was developed by a rehabilitation expert team in cooperation with the BNK Service GmbH, Munich, Germany, who also was responsible for the online service and data administration. All data have been anonymized. The case report included age, gender, the health care insurance responsible, diagnoses relevant for cardiac rehabilitation, social status, risk factors and risk diseases, body size, weight, body mass index, resting heart rate, blood pressure, laboratory parameters, medication, LV-function, maximal exercise performance. Data relevant for cardiovascular risk estimation were controlled at the end of the rehabilitation program. Furthermore the most important items for social reintegration and re-uptake of work were assessed.</p><p>Data evaluation was done by the Stiftung Institut f&#252;r Herzinfarktforschung Ludwigshafen. The statistical analysis was descriptive focusing on the total population and data variations with respect to the participating rehabilitation centers, gender and age groups. For the statistical analysis continuous variables were expressed as means with standard deviations or medians with 25<sup>th</sup> and 75<sup>th</sup> percentiles, and were compared by using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. Categorical variables are presented as absolute numbers and percentages, and were compared by using the chi-square test. The statistical comparisons were two-tailed, and p-values &lt; 0.05 were considered as statistically significant. All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> shows the distribution of the patients between the four participating rehabilitation centers. Almost all patients had a post-acute CR (98.7%), with acute coronary syndrome or cardiovascular surgery as main reasons for CR admission. The population of the centers differed with respect to age and consequently with respect to the social status (e.g. employed or retired).</p><p>In <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> the clinical characteristics of the KARREE population are outlined. In addition to the total population three age groups (age &lt; 50 years, 50 - 70 years, above 70 years) as well as gender differences were evaluated. Several clinical characteristics strongly depend on the particular age group including the CR initiating diagnosis. Although the majority of patients participated in CR after acute coronary syndrome, this diagnosis as the basis for CR-referral decreased significantly with age, whereas the number of patients after bypass surgery or aortic valve surgery increased. Also the cardiovascular risk factors in the patient’s history varied with age. Whereas risk factors likephysical inactivity, overweight, psychosocial stress as well as cigarette smoking declined with age, diabetes and hypertension significantly increased (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Basic characteristics of participating ambulatory rehabilitation centers</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total n = 2989</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Center (1) n = 988</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Center (2) n = 1163</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Center (3) n = 374</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Center (4) n = 464</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p-value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Female (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age (years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65 (55/73)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61 (53/70)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64 (54/72)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62 (53/72)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73 (68/77)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Working (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.1 (1089/2861)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41,0 (372/907)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.1 (469/1141)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.6 (166/364)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.3 (82/449)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Retired (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.3 (1525/2861)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46.1 (418/907)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.2 (584/1141)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.1 (164/364)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80.0 (359/449)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unemployed (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.6 (247/2861)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.9 (117/907)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.7 (88/1141)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.3 (34/364)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8 (8/449)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Post acute CR (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>CR: cardiovascular rehabilitation; ns: not significant.</p><fig id="fig1"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref></label><caption><title> Age dependent distribution of various cardiovascular risk factors. Depending on the age group the prevalence of each of the selected risk factors varied significantly (p &lt; 0.0001)</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/7-1540048x6.png"/></fig><p>At CR start major cardiovascular risk factors already were medically treated or positively influenced by individual behavior changes along the preceding in-hospital treatment. Thereby average LDL-cholesterol was measured only slightly above the target value of 100 mg/dl, and triglycerides were fairly adjusted (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). The average resting blood pressure also was within the expected target values.</p><p>Depression and anxiety only could be verified in a minority of the total population. However, both, depression and anxiety strongly depended on age, being highest in the young age group below 50 years. Furthermore, female patients were more prone to psychological stress (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). These anamnestic reports could be confirmed by data from the HADS-tests showing the highest number of patients with pathological depression and anxiety scores in the young age group and in female gender (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p><p>The majority of patients exhibited a normal or only slightly reduced left ventricular function. The stress test at the beginning of the rehabilitation showed a reasonable performance declining with age and being significantly lower in female patients. However, only 50.1% of all patients had a stress test at the CR start (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p><p>Medical treatment of the patients reflected guideline recommendations already at CR start, and there were only slight changes in medication during the rehabilitation process (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). In accordance with the prevalent risk diseases like diabetes and hypertension, drug prescription varied between the age groups. Especially the use of ARBs, vitamin-K antagonists, calcium channel blockers, diuretics and anti-diabetics increased with age.</p><p>During the course of the rehabilitation program there was a significant increase of exercise performance in all age groups independent of gender. In addition there was a further adjustment of other risk factors like a reduction of LDL-cholesterol and triglycerides. Also resting heart rate and blood pressure at rest were significantly reduced (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>).</p><p>From the patients supported by the German pension (DRV) funds 43.5% directly returned to work after rehabilitation. In addition 16.7% of the CR patients still working got support by organizing a stepwise reintegration into their previous working place. Almost all patients supported by the German pension funds were integrated into a special DRV aftercare program, whereas 65.5% of the retired patients were integrated into ambulatory heart groups.</p><table-wrap-group id="2"><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution of key characteristics between age groups and gender</title></caption><table-wrap id="2_1"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total population</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;50 years</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >50 - 70 years</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >˃70 years</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p-value</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Male</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Female</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p-value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number of patients included</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2982</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.9% (535)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.2% (1677)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.8% (770)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.3 (2483)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.7 (499)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Female</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.7% (499/2982)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.1% (81/535)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.4% (241/1677)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.0% (177/770)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Average age (years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62 (52 - 70)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67 (54 - 74)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Post-acute CR, AHB/AR (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CR-initiation (%) Hospital GP Cardiologist Patients</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.6 0.9 11.8 20.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75.1 1.3 2.1 21.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68.1 0.8 9.1 21.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.0 0.9 24.4 17.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001 ns &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68.6 0.9 10.1 20.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.3 1.0 20.2 22.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001 ns &lt;0.0001 Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CR diagnoses (%) Post ACS Post CABG Post valve repair ICD PAD with vascular surgery</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59.9 (1710/2854) 17.1 (489/2854) 8.4 (241/2854) 0.9 (25/2854) 1.2 (33/2854)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70.9 (360/508) 7.5 (38/508) 8.1 (42/508) 1.2 (6/508) 0.8 (4/508)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.3 (970/1608) 18.3 (294/1608) 7.2 (116/1608) 0.9 (15/1608) 1.4 (22/1608)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.5 (380/738) 21.3 (157/738) 11.3 (84/738) 0.5 (4/738) 0.9 (7/738)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.01 ns ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59.2 18.5 8.5 0.9 1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63.5 10.2 8.4 0.6 1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ns &lt;0.0001 ns ns ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >History of risk factors: Physical inactivity Diabetes Genetic disposition Lipid disorder Hypertension Smoking Psychosocial stress Overweight</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.9 (968/2854) 22.4 (639/2854) 32.6 (930/2854) 78.4 (2238/2854) 73.4 (2094/2854) 46.7 (1334/2854) 14.5 (413/2854) 46.7 (1333/2854)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.7 (227/508) 10.2 (52/508) 38.2 (194/508) 69.2 (352/508) 54.3 (276/508) 70.9 (360/508) 24.4 (124/508) 53.7 (273/508)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.0 (579/1608) 23.4 (377/1608) 32.3 (520/1608) 80.2 (1290/1608) 74.2 (1193/1608) 49.8 (800/1608) 15.9 (255/1608) 49.4 (794/1608)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.0 (162/738) 28.5 (210/738) 29.3 (216/738) 80.8 (596/738) 84.7 (625/738) 23.6 (174/738) 4.6 (34/738) 36.0 (266/738)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.01 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.0 22.1 31.2 78.5 72.7 48.7 13.9 47.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.4 24.0 39.5 77.9 76.8 37.0 17.5 40.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ns ns &lt;0.001 ns ns &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.05 &lt;0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Risk factors as evaluated at CR start: Fasting glucose Total cholesterol LDL cholesterol HDL cholesterol Triglycerides Systolic blood pressure Diastolic blood pressure Actual smoking (%) Depression at admission (HADS ≥ 11) (%) Anxiety at admission (HADS ≥ 11) (%) BMI (kg/m<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >111.7 &#177; 43.0 183.5 &#177; 44.5 107.5 &#177; 37.7 44.8 &#177; 13.2 165.3 &#177; 92.6 127 &#177; 20.4 76.9 &#177; 11.1 14.6 (365/2498) 9.2 (166/1801) 14.0 (253/1802) 28.4 &#177; 4.6 (97.9%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.8 &#177; 34.0 190.1 &#177; 44.4 112.7 &#177; 36.1 44.1 &#177; 14.4 177.5 &#177; 100.9 121.3 &#177; 16.7 77.5 &#177; 11.2 28.7 (140/487) 12.9 (45/348) 20.9 (73/349) 28.5 &#177; 5.0 (98.3%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >113.6 &#177; 43.2 183.6 &#177; 45.0 107.4 &#177; 38.4 44.3 &#177; 12.8 169.3 &#177; 97.8 127.9 &#177; 20.4 77.8 &#177; 10.9 14.4 (209/1454) 9.4 (98/1043) 13.8 (144/1,042) 28.7 &#177; 4.8 (98.5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >117.8 &#177; 47.7 178.8 &#177; 43.1 104.3 &#177; 36.8 46.3 &#177; 13.1 148.0 &#177; 70.0 131.8 &#177; 20.7 74.5 &#177; 11.1 2.9 (16/557) 5.6 (23/410) 8.8 (36/411) 27.9 &#177; 3.9 (96.2%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.001 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >111.8 &#177; 43.1 181.0 &#177; 43.8 106.3 &#177; 37.2 43.2 &#177; 11.8 166.8 &#177; 95.4 127.3 &#177; 20.2 76.9 &#177; 11.1 14.8 (313/2,111) 8.7 (130/1496) 12.6 (189/1,505) 28.5 &#177; 4.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >111.0 &#177; 42.4 196.0 &#177; 45.9 113.1 &#177; 39.8 52.6 &#177; 16.7 157.8 &#177; 76.6 130.1 &#177; 21.9 76.8 &#177; 11.0 13.4 (52/387) 11.8 (36/305) 21.8 (66/303) 28.1 &#177; 5.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ns ns ns &lt;0.0001 ns &lt;0.05 ns ns 0.09 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.05</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="2_2"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Other clinical characteristics as evaluated at CR start: LV-function: -Normal (%) -Slightly reduced (%) -Moderately reduced (%) -Severely reduced (%) Stress test: Maximal performance (watt) (% of total number evaluated)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >63.9 (1775/2746) 21.4 (587/2746) 10.2 (280/2746) 3.6 (99/2746) 96.4 &#177; 38.3 50.1</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >66.5 (327/492) 21.1 (104/492) 8.3 (41/492) 3.7 (18/492) 117.3 &#177; 39.9 63.7</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >63.7 (985/1546) 20.8 (322/1546) 10.7 (165/1546) 4.1 (63/1546) 96.2 &#177; 36.2 51.3</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >62.6 (443/708) 22.7 (161/708) 10.5 (74/708) 2.5 (18/708) 72.5 &#177; 26.7 37.9</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >ns ns ns ns &lt;0.0001</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >62.7 (1437/2283) 22.2 (507/2283) 10.5 (239/2283) 3.7 (85/2283) 100.6 &#177; 38.5 52.0</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >69.8 (323/463) 17.3 (81/463) 8.9 (41/463) 3.0 (14/463) 69.6 &#177; 23.9 40.7</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.01 &lt;0.05 ns ns &lt;0.0001</th></tr></thead></tbody></table></table-wrap></table-wrap-group><p>AHB: Anschlussheilverfahren; AR: Anschlussrehabilitation; BMI: body mass index; CR: cardiovascular rehabilitation; ICD: implantable cardioverter defibrillator system; LV: left ventricular; ns: not significant.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Medication at start and at the end of the CR-program</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacological compounds</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Prescriptions at CR start Number of evaluated patients n = 2842</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Prescriptions at CR end Number of evaluated patients n = 2842</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Beta-receptor blockers (% of total population; &lt;50; 50 - 70; &gt;70 years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.3; 89.2; 87.1; 86.6 (ns)<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85.7; 87.6; 85.4; 85.1 (ns)<sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ACE-inhibitors (% of total population; &lt;50; 50 - 70; &gt;70 years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.7; 69.3; 68.2; 61.6 (&lt;0.01)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.0; 66.5; 66.8; 60.2 (&lt;0.05)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ARBs (% of total population; &lt;50; 50 - 70; &gt;70 years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.7; 3.5; 6.6; 13.0 (&lt;0.0001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.8; 5.1; 7.4; 14.5 (&lt;0.0001)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Statins (% of total population; &lt;50; 50 - 70; &gt;70 years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79.1; 75.6; 81.3; 76.5 (ns)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79.7; 75.6; 81.8; 78.1 (ns)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ASS (% of total population; &lt;50; 50 - 70; &gt;70 years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >84.2; 82.7; 85.8; 81.8 (ns)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82.2; 80.9; 83.7; 79.9 (ns)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Clopidogrel (% of total population; &lt;50; 50 - 70; &gt;70 years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.1; 65.7; 56.7; 48.2 (&lt;0.0001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.5; 60.4; 53.3; 45.2 (&lt;0.0001)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vitamin-K antagonists (% of total population; &lt;50; 50 - 70; &gt;70 years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.9; 11.6; 12.7; 18.3 (&lt;0.001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.1; 11.0; 11.9; 17.3 (&lt;0.001)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Calcium channel blockers (% of total population; &lt;50; 50 - 70; &gt;70 years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.1; 4.5; 9.7; 14.9 (&lt;0.0001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.0; 3.7; 9.8; 14.9 (&lt;0.0001)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Diuretics (% of total population; &lt;50; 50 - 70; &gt;70 years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.1; 13.4; 25.7; 39.5 (&lt;0.0001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.6; 14.2; 26.9; 38.4 (&lt;0.0001)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Aldosterone antagonists (% of total population; &lt;50; 50 - 70; &gt;70 years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.4; 6.7; 4.2; 3.3 (&lt;0.01)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9; 6.9; 4.9; 3.7 (&lt;0.05)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Oral anti-diabetics (% of total population; &lt;50; 50 - 70; &gt;70 years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.3; 4.1; 11.8; 15.2 (&lt;0.0001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.9; 4.1; 11.6; 14.2 (&lt;0.0001)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Insulin (% of total population; &lt;50; 50 - 70; &gt;70 years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.8; 2.6; 5.9; 7.7 (&lt;0.0001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.7; 2.6; 5.9; 7.7 (&lt;0.001)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>ACE: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme; ARB: angiotensin-receptor-blocker; ASS: acetylic salicylic acid; <sup>*</sup>) significance levels refer to differences within the age groups.</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Changes of risk parameters during rehabilitation</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Parameter</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Change (total population or as indicated)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p-value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Body mass index (kg/m<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >decrease 0.1 &#177; 0.7<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total cholesterol (mg/dl)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >decrease 16.7 &#177; 35.8<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >HDL-cholesterol (mg/dl)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >increase 0.5 &#177; 9.0<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >LDL-cholesterol (mg/dl)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Decrease 13.6 &#177; 31.4<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Triglycerides (mg/dl)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Decrease 20.7 &#177; 76.0<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Resting heart rate (beats/min)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Decrease 4.1 &#177; 10.1<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Decrease 5.9 &#177; 16.9<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Decrease 1.9 &#177; 10.7<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Change in maximal performance in the stress test (watt)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >increase 20.0 &#177; 25.2 (total group) increase 25.9 &#177; 30.0 (&lt;50 years) increase 19.0 &#177; 24.5 (50 - 70 years) increase 15.7 &#177; 18.7 (&gt;70 years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><sup>*</sup>no significant difference between the age groups.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>KARREE is the first registry evaluating ambulatory cardiovascular rehabilitation in Germany under the conditions of all day care and in alignment with the BAR-guidelines in a large cohort of patients treated in four rehabilitation centers. Although this registry only is an observational study there are several results of importance:</p><p>1) In the KARREE registry post-acute CR (AHB, Anschlussheilverfahren; AR, Anschlussrehabilitation) represented 98.7% of all patients (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>), whereas in the population of patients supported by the German pension funds (DRV) the proportion of post-acute CR only was 68% in 2012 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref19">19</xref>] . Therefore it may be suggested, that patients with chronic cardiovascular disease primarily are admitted to rehabilitation clinics. This potentially indicates a conflict of interest with respect to the distribution of the patients, as many rehabilitation clinics still are owned by the German pension funds, which may have influence on patients’ allocation to various CR settings.</p><p>2) The proportion of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in this cohort is low. This potentially indicates a severe shortage of special care of this group of patients at least in some areas of Germany, and therefore deserves further investigation. As PAD patients especially benefit from cardiovascular rehabilitation by supervised implementation of systematic walking and support in smoking cessation, their admission and participation to CR should be clinical routine.</p><p>3) The baseline characteristics of the patients admitted to CR were similar as reported recently with an average age of 65 years in KARREE and 62 years of age in the OMEGA population (mostly in-patient rehabilitation) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref7">7</xref>] . This clearly contradicts previous assumptions that ambulatory cardiovascular rehabilitation may be preferred by young patients [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref20">20</xref>] . Still, the proportion of female patients remains to be low raising the question of the attractiveness of ambulatory services for women.</p><p>4) All patients participating in KARREE reported a combination of several cardiovascular risks and risk diseases indicating a high risk population. However, depending on age a remarkable variation of the risk pattern could be observed. Whereas diabetes and hypertension were significantly increasing with age, smoking and psychosocial stress were decreasing. Although these data only have an observational basis, this age dependent risk pattern strongly indicates the necessity of an individual counselling and treatment of the patients during CR and thereafter. Especially in the young group of patients additional psychological support should be guaranteed in every rehabilitation center.</p><p>5) At least as far as cardiovascular risk factors can be treated by medication, this already has been consequently started during the patients’ hospital stay. Therefore guideline adjusted medication primarily was continued during CR and changed only to a small extend. Moreover many recent smokers at least provisionally had stopped smoking already at rehabilitation start. Although during the rehabilitation program of three weeks the cardiovascular risk pattern still could be improved (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>) a major task of modern cardiovascular rehabilitation therefore is to further inform and educate the patients with respect to the individual relevance of cardiovascular prevention and to stimulate the individual motivation on compliance and adherence to preventive medication and life style. To improve sustainability of secondary prevention in the individual participation in after-care programs have been shown to be important [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref22">22</xref>] . It has to be noted that participation in such after-care programs could be achieved in the vast majority of these patients participating in ambulatory rehabilitation, and this is far above the numbers reported from inpatient cardiac rehabilitation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.51880-ref5">5</xref>] .</p><p>6) Apart from long term implementation of cardiovascular prevention reintegration into normal life and especially into working ability is a major task of cardiovascular rehabilitation. Of the employed patients 43.5% could start working again directly after cardiac rehabilitation. In addition 16.75 were supported by stepwise reintegration into work. Unfortunately the register does not provide information on the remaining patients. This is a limitation of the registry, as especially blue color workers may keep serious limitations being a barrier against subsequent reintegration into work. This urgently needs to be investigated in more detail in future.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Limitations of the Study</title><p>This is an observational study reflecting patients characteristics and actual all day care in ambulatory CR in Germany. The data do not allow any suggestions on the clinical long-term effect of this intervention neither in comparison to inpatient CR nor in comparison to cardiac patients not participating CR. Moreover, for purposes of quality assurance the presented program of data acquisition and registration was too intensive and time consuming to be continuously integrated into all day care. Still, a simple and effective routine evaluation of the clinical short and long-term results by testing independent samples of patients participating and not participating CR are urgently needed for further development and improvement of this therapeutic instrument.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>6. Conclusion</title><p>The KARREE registry reflects the actual clinical practice of ambulatory cardiac rehabilitation in Germany. Almost all patients consecutively enrolled in KARREE had an acute coronary syndrome or cardiovascular surgery before rehabilitation. This underscores the importance of a close networking between heart centers and cardiac rehabilitation facilities. Moreover, the majority of the patients were at high cardiovascular risk, and the marked differences of risk factor patterns between the age groups under investigation underscore the imperative necessity of an individualized therapeutic approach during cardiac rehabilitation.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Acknowledgments</title><p>This work is in remembrance of Doctor Gregor Sauer, who initiated and designed the registry in a leading position, and who prematurely paid the debt of nature. The registry was supported by the Deutsche Gesellschaft f&#252;r Pr&#228;vention &amp; Rehabilitation von Herz-Kreislauferkrankungen, e.V., DGPR.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>From the participants of this study no conflicts of interest are reported.</p></sec><sec id="s9"><title>Ethical Considerations</title><p>Within this survey data have consecutively and anonymously been collected within a program for quality assurance of the participating ambulatory rehabilitation centers. These centers were asked to strictly follow the current medical guidelines and the rules of good clinical practice. According to the German professional code of conduct a consultation of the local Ethics Committees is not required under these conditions.</p></sec><sec id="s10"><title>NOTES</title></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.51880-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Korsukéwitz, Ch., Rohwetter, M. and Rauch, B. (2007) Definition und rechtliche Grundlagen der Rehabilitation. In: Kardiologische Rehabilitation, Standards für die Praxis nach den Leitlinien der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Pr&amp;auml;vention und Rehabilitation von Herz-Kreislauferkrankungen e.V. (DGPR), Referenz-Reihe, Georg Thieme Verlag, 4-6, ISBN 978-3-13-143141-7.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Korsukéwitz, C., Falk, J. and Lindow, B. (2012) Kardiologische Rehabilitation in Deutschland. Erfolgsmodell mit Perspektive: Herz, 37, 12-21.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Willich, S.N., Müller-Nordhorn, J., Kulig, M., Binting, S., Gohlke, H., Hahmann, H., Bestehorn, K., Krobot, K. and V&amp;ouml;ller, H., PIN-Study Group. (2001) Cardiac Risk Factors, Medication, and Recurrent Clinical Events after Acute Coronary Disease. A Prospective Cohort Study. European Heart Journal, 22, 307-313.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/euhj.2000.2294</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bestehorn, K., Wegscheider, K. and V&amp;ouml;ller, H. (2008) Contemporary Trends in Cardiac Rehabilitation in Germany: Patient Characteristics, Drug Treatment, and Risk-Factor Management from 2000 to 2005. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 15, 312-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HJR.0b013e3282f40e14</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jünger, C., Rauch, B., Schneider, S., Liebhart, N., Rauch, G., Senges, J. and Bestehorn, K. (2010) Effect of Early Short-Term Cardiac Rehabilitation after Acute ST-Elevation and Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction on 1-Year Mortality. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 26, 803-811. http://dx.doi.org/10.1185/03007991003604216</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schwaab, B., Waldmann, A., Katalinic, A., Sheikhzadeh, A. and Raspe, H. (2011) In-Patient Cardiac Rehabilitation Versus Medical Care—A Prospective Multicentre Controlled 12 Months Follow-Up in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 18, 581-586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741826710389392</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rauch, B., Riemer, T., Schwaab, B., Schneider, S., Diller, F., Gohlke, H., Schiele, R., Katus, H., Gitt, A. and Senges, J., for the OMEGA Study Group. (2014) Short-Term Comprehensive Cardiac Rehabilitation after AMI Is Associated with Reduced 1-Year Mortality: Results from the OMEGA Study. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 21, 1060-1069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2047487313486040</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mayer-Berger, W., Simic, D., Mahmoodzad, J., Burtscher, R., Kohlmeyer, M., Schwitalla, B. and Redaèlli, M. (2014) Efficacy of a Long-Term Secondary Prevention Programme Following Inpatient Cardiovascular Rehabilitation on Risk and Health-Related Quality of Life in a Low-Education Cohort: A Randomized Controlled Study. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 21, 145-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2047487312465526</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Salzwedel, A., Nosper, M., R&amp;ouml;hrig, B., Linck-Eleftheriadis, S., Strandt, G. and V&amp;ouml;ller, H. (2014) Outcome Quality of In-Patient Cardiac Rehabilitation in Elderly Patients—Identification of Relevant Parameters. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 21, 172-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2047487312469475</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bjarnason-Wehrens, B., Predel, H.G., Graf, C. and Rost, R. (1999) Ambulante kardiale Rehabilitation der Phase II— K&amp;ouml;lner Modell“—einschlie&amp;szlig;lich der Ergebnisse drei Jahre nach Abschluss der Rehabilitation. Herz, 24, 9-23.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03042127</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gysan, D., Heinzler, R. and Schmidt, K. (1999) Auswirkungen einer vierw&amp;ouml;chigen ambulanten kardialen Rehabilitationsma&amp;szlig;nahme (Phase II) auf kardiovaskul&amp;auml;re Risikofaktoren, k&amp;ouml;rperliche Belastbarkeit und berufliche Reintegration bei Patienten nach Myokardinfarkt, Dilatationsbehandlung und Herzoperation. Herz, 24, 44-56.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03042131</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wendt, T. (1999) Ambulante Phase II Rehabilitation Herzkranker an einem im Ballungsraum Rhein-Main gelegenen Akutkrankenhaus: Das Frankfurter Modell. Herz, 24, 57-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03042132</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bjarnason-Wehrens, B., Bott, D., Benesch, L., Bischoff, K.O., Buran-Kilian, B., Gysan, D., Hollenstein, U., Mayer-Berger, W., Wilkniss, R. and Sauer, G. (2007) Long-Term Results of a Three-Week Intensive Cardiac Out-Patient Rehabilitation Program in Motivated Patients with Low Social Status. Clinical Research in Cardiology, 96, 77-85. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00392-007-0461-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für Rehabilitation, BAR (2005) Rahmenempfehlungen zur ambulanten kardiologischen Rehabilitation. Frankfurt am Main, Dezember 2005.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Badura, B., Grande, G., Jan&amp;szlig;en, H. and Schott, T. (1994) Evaluation kardiologischer Rehabilitationein Vergleich von Struktur-, Prozess- und Ergebnisqualit&amp;auml;t station&amp;auml;rer und ambulanter Anschlussheilbehandlung. In: Die Betriebskrankenkasse; Zeitschr. des Bundesverbandes der Betriebskrankenkassen, Essen, 500-517.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Iseringhausen, O., Schott, T. and vom Order, A. (2002) Die Qualit&amp;auml;t der Organisation Kardiologischer Rehabilitation—Ein Vergleich station&amp;auml;rer und ambulanter Versorgungsformen. Rehabilitation, 41, 130-139. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-28447</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schweikert, B., Hahmann, H., Steinacker, J.M., et al. (2009) Intervention Study Shows Outpatient Cardiac Rehabilitation to Be Economically at Least as Attractive as Inpatient Rehabilitation. Clinical Research in Cardiology, 98, 787-795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00392-009-0081-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Steinacker, J.M., Li, Y., Muche, R., Koenig, W., Hahmann, H., Imhof, A., Kropf, C., Brandstetter, S., Schweikert, B., Leidl, R. and Schiefer, D.H. (2011) Long Term Effects of Comprehensive Cardiac Rehabilitation in an Inpatient and Outpatient Setting. Swiss Medical Weekly, 140, Article ID: w13141.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">V&amp;ouml;ller, H. (2013) Rehabilitation. In: Deutscher Herzbericht 2013, Deutsche Herzstiftung (Hrsg.), Deutsche Herzstiftung e.V., Frankfurt am Main, 180-185, ISBN 978-3-9811926-6-7.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Karoff, M., Müller-Fahrnow, W., Kittel, J., Vetter, H.O., Gülker, H. and Spyra, C. (2002) Outpatient Cardiological Rehabilitation—Acceptance and Conditions Related to Choice of Setting. Die Rehabilitation, 41, 167-174. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-28441</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Buchwalsky, G., Buchwalsky, R. and Held, K. (2002) Langzeitwirkungen der Nachsorge in einer ambulanten Herzgruppe. Eine Fall-Kontrollstudie. Zeitschrift für Kardiologie, 91, 139-146.   
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s003920200003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.51880-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Giannuzzi, P., Temporelli, L., Marchioli, R., Maggioni, A., Balestroni, G., Ceci, V., Chieffo, C., Gattone, M., Griffo, R., Schweiger, C., Tavazzi, L., Urbinati, S., Valagussa, F. and Vanuzzo, D., GOSPEL Investigators (2008) Globalsecondary Prevention Strategies to Limit Event Recurrence after Myocardial Infarction. JAMA Internal Medicine, 168, 2194-2204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinte.168.20.2194</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>