Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2020 May 8;7(2):89–103. doi: 10.1007/s40471-020-00235-4

Table 4.

Summary of findings from cardiac rehabilitation studies.

Author;
Design
Cancer
types
Follow
up,
weeks
N Measurement
method, units
Baseline
Mean (SD)
Follow-up
Mean (SD)
Change
Mean
P-value Direction
pre-post
Cardiorespiratory fitness
De Jesus et al. 2017[21]; QE Breast 16 17 Bruce protocol, VO2 peak mL/kg/min 20.2 (4.7) 20.8 (4.6) +0.55 0.50 No change
Young-McCaughan et al. 2003 [28]; QE Mixed 12 45 Bruce protocol, VO2 peak converted to METs 7.3 (2.1) 8.4 (2.1) NR 0.001 Increased
Bonsignore et al. 2018 [20]; RC Prostate 26 27 with cancer Bruce protocol, VO2 peak mL/kg/min 16.9 (5.1) 19.6 (6.2) +2.7 group difference p=0.71, within subject p= 0.001; between subject p= 0.98 Increased
27 controls 16.4 (4.2) 20.2 (5.8) +3.8 Increased
Dolan et al. 2018 [27]; RC Breast 22 152 Bruce protocol, VO2peak mL/kg/min 20.96 (6.4) 23.94 (6.8) +3.0 (95% CI 2.4, 3.5) <0.001 Increased
Walk test/ gait speed
Dittus et al. 2015 [26]; QE Mixed 12 142 6-minute walk test, meters 534 (171) 583 (157) +8.3% 0.003 Increased
Rothe et al. 2018 [29]; QE Hem 14 30 6-minute walk test, meters 484 (95) 532 (98) NR < 0.001 Increased
Morris et al. 2009 [24]; RC Mixed 8 to 12 30 6-minute walk test, meters 360 (126) 437 (122) +77.1 < 0.001 Increased
Rothe et al. 2018 [29]; QE Hem 14 30 gait speed, meters/second 1.35 (0.22) 1.47 (0.22) NR < 0.05 Increased
Grip strength
Rothe et al. 2018 [29]; QE Hem 14 30 left grip strength, kg 38 (13) 40 (12) NR NR Increased
Rothe et al. 2018 [29]; QE Hem 14 30 right grip strength, kg 39 (13) 42 (13) NR <0.01 Increased
Balance
Rothe et al. 2018 [29]; QE Hem 14 30 timed-up-and-go, seconds 6.6 (2.2) 6.5 (2.2) NR NR No change
Strength
Dittus et al. 2015 [26]; QE Mixed 12 142 chest press, 1 repetition maximum, pounds 63.7 (41.2) 81.3 (44.2) +21.6% < 0.0001 Increased
Dittus et al. 2015 [26]; QE Mixed 12 130 leg press, 1 repetition maximum, pounds 115.7 (40.7) 147.4 (39.9) +21.5% < 0.0001 Increased
Cardiovascular health
Bonsignore et al. 2018 [20]; RC Prostate 26 27 with cancer resting heart rate, beats per minute 70.7 (15.1) 64.7 (10.5) −6 group difference p=0.41, within subject p= 0.002; between subject p= 0.55 Decreased
27 controls (bpm) 67.6 (13.2) 64.1 (12.3) −3.5
Bonsignore et al. 2018 [20]; RC Prostate 26 27 with cancer resting systolic blood pressure, mmHg 126.9(18.8) 125.7(12.7) −1.2 group difference p=0.22, within subject p=0.56; between subject p=0.10 No change
27 controls 133.7 (18.5) 132.5 (17) −1.2
Bonsignore et al. 2018 [20]; RC Prostate 26 27 with cancer resting diastolic blood pressure, mmHg 73.1 (7.5) 72.7 (7.5) −0.4 group difference p=0.64, within subject p=0.12; between subject p=0.99 No change
27 controls 74.2 (10.2) 71.0 (9.9) −3.2
Anthropometries
Bonsignore et al. 2018 [20]; RC Prostate 26 27 with cancer BMI, kg/m2 27.7 (5.3) 27.7 (5.2) 0 group difference p=0.68, within subject p= 0.51; between subject p=0.67 No change
27 controls 27.9 (3.5) 28.0 (3.3) +0.1
De Jesus et al. 2017 [21]; QE Breast 16 17 Body fat, dual X-ray absorptiometry, % 45.8 (5.3) 46.8 (6.9) +1.0 No change
Bonsignore et al. 2018 [20]; RC Prostate 26 27 with cancer Body fat, % 29.2 (8.6) 28.7 (8.4) −0.5 group difference p=0.93, within subject p=0.41; between subject p=0.72 No change
27 controls 28.9 (8.8) 30.9 (10.5) +2.0
De Jesus et al. 2017 [21]; QE Breast 16 17 weight, kg 84.3 (15.0) 85.9 (15.9) +1.6 0.31 No change
Dolan et al. 2018 [27]; RC Breast 22 152 weight, kg 72.7 (17.7) 72.1 (17.3) −0.6 (94% CI −0.1, −1.1) 0.031 Decreased
Dolan et al. 2018 [27]; RC Breast 22 151 waist circumference, cm 88.5 (14.1) 86.4 (131.4) −2.2 (91% CI −1.3, −3.0) <0.001 Decreased
Physical Activity
De Jesus et al. 2017 [21]; QE Breast 16 17 Actical, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, hours 2.5 (7.4) 0.5 (1.0) −2.0 0.35 No change
Young-McCaughan et al. 2003 [28]; QE Mixed 12 31 Motionlogger Actigraph, counts per minute 199.3(24.7) 197.3(30.9) NR 0.10 No change
Fatigue
De Jesus et al. 2017 [21]; QE Breast 16 17 Piper Fatigue Scale 5.4 (2.6) 4.6 (2.3) −0.73 0.09 No change
Edmonton Fatigue Scale 4.8 (3.2) 3.6 (2.7) −1.2 0.09 No change
Dittus et al. 2015 [26]; QE Mixed 12 141 Fatigue Symptom Inventory 15.7 (12.2) 10.0 (11.8) +36.3% <0.0001 Decreased
Depression
De Jesus et al. 2017 [21]; QE Breast 16 17 Edmonton Symptom Assessment System 2.8 (3.4) 1.9 (2.7) −0.96 0.06 No change
Dittus et al. 2015 [26]; QE Mixed 12 152 Patient Health Questionnaire-9 5.3 (4.0) 3.7 (3.5) +25.1% <0.0001 Decreased
Dolan et al. 2018 [27]; RC Breast 22 130 Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) 13.3 (9.4) 11.8 (8.7) −1.5 (95% CI −0.2, −2.7) 0.019 Decreased
Anxiety
De Jesus et al. 2017 [21]; QE Breast 16 17 Edmonton Symptom Assessment System 3.0 (3.5) 2.7 (3.1) −0.3 0.45 No change
Dittus et al. 2015 [26]; QE Mixed 12 154 Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 2.9 (3.5) 2.3 (3.2) +18.5% 0.042 Decreased
Quality of life
De Jesus et al. 2017 [21]; QE Breast 16 17 Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) 72.8 (18.3) 77.6 (17.4) +4.8 0.02 Increased
Young-McCaughan et al. 2003 [28]; QE Mixed 12 42 Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System Short Form (CARES-SF) 46.8 (8.6) 44.3 (10.1) NR 0.03 Increased
Dolan et al. 2018 [27]; RC Breast 22 83 Functional Assessment Of Cancer Therapy – Breast (FACT-B) 101.5(23.9) 110.6(20.0) +9.0 (95%CI 5, 13.1) <0.001 Increased
Dolan et al. 2018 [27];RC ranged from 80-85 Short Form-36 Health Status (SF-36), 8 scale domains pre scores ranges from 40 to76 post scores ranged from 58 to 83 all domains improved from pre to post except for bodily pain bodily pain p=0.311; other 7 domains p ranged from < 0.001 to 0.020 Increased

Abbreviations: BMI=body mass index, cm=centimeters, Hem=hematological, kg=kilogram, METs=metabolic equivalent of task, NR=not reported Rothe et al. measured outcomes at three time points – before stem cell transplant, 6 weeks after transplant which was pre-cardiac rehabilitation, and at post-cardiac rehabilitation. Data presented in table is from pre and post cardiac rehabilitation and p-values are reported pairwise comparisons between pre and post cardiac rehabilitation time points.

CARES-SF QOL – lower scores indicate better QOL