Table 4.

Summary of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation trials that used coronary atherosclerotic disease progression as the primary outcome

		Results
Study	Follow-up duration	Control	Intervention	P*
Schuler et al [29]†	1 year (n = 36)	33% progression,	28% progression,	< 0.05
		61% no change,	33% no change,
		6% regression	39% regression
Niebauer et al [30]†	5 years (n = 25)	75% progression,	38% progression,	ns
		13% no change,	38% no change,
		13% regression	25% regression
Schuler et al [31]†	1 year (n = 113)	48% progression,	23% progression,	< 0.05
		35% no change,	45% no change,
		17% regression	33% regression
Niebauer et al [33]†	6 years	74% progression,	59% progression,	< 0.0001
		26% no change,	22% no change,
		0% regression	19% regression
The Lifestyle Heart Trial [34,35]‡	1 year (n = 41)	2.28 (-3.00 to 4.86) (n = 15)	-1.75 (-4.08 to 0.58) (n = 18)	0.02
		(53% progression,	18% progression,
		5% no change,	(0% no change,
		42% regression)	82% regression)
	5 years (n = 35)	11.77 (3.40–20.14) (n = 15)	-3.07 (-5.91 to -0.24) (n = 20)	0.001
SCRIP [36]§	4 years (n = 246)	-0.045 ± 0.073	-0.024 ± 0.067	0.02
		(50% progression,	(50% progression,
		20% no change,	18% no change,
		10% regression,	20% regression,
		21% mixed changes)	12% mixed changes)

^* Between-group comparisons; ns, not significant. ^† Progression, ≥ 10% decrease; no change, ≤ 10% change; regression, ≥ 10% increase in percent minimal diameter. Patient assigned an average score when multiple stenoses analyzed. ^‡ Average percent diameter stenosis change from baseline; 186 lesions analyzed (77 control, 109 intervention) by quantitative coronary angiography. Results reported from participants completing a 5-year follow-up. ^§ Absolute change in minimal diameter stenosis (mm) per year as assessed by quantitative coronary angiography.