<?xml version="1.0"?>
<metadata xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><dc:title>Uptake and effectiveness of outpatient vs. residential cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction</dc:title><dc:creator>Jug,	Borut	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Fras,	Zlatko	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Furlan,	Tjaša	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Novaković,	Marko	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Tasič,	Jerneja	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Lainščak,	Mitja	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Farkaš-Lainščak,	Jerneja	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Gavrić,	Dalibor	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Ograjenšek,	Irena	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Došenović Bonča,	Petra	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:subject>health services</dc:subject><dc:subject>diseases</dc:subject><dc:subject>rehabilitation</dc:subject><dc:subject>social costs</dc:subject><dc:description>Aims: To estimate the participation in, and the comparative effectiveness of, short-term residential and comprehensive outpatient cardiac rehabilitation (CR), after the latter was introduced in Slovenia by establishing dedicated regional CR centers. Methods: We extracted and analyzed data on all patients hospitalized for myocardial infarction in Slovenia (n = 15,639), focusing on CR participation – either comprehensive outpatient (introduced in 2017) or short-term residential (available throughout the study period 2015–2021). Impact on nation-wide CR participation rates was assessed by interrupted time series analysis; impact on patient-level outcomes (all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations) was assessed using Kaplan Meier estimators and ‘doubly robust’ Cox regression with propensity score-derived inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results: Of the 11,815 eligible patients (event-free after 180-day landmark), 3819 (32.3%) attended CR. Nation-wide CR participation rates increased both in level (9.7%, 95% CI 6.3–3.1) and in trend (0.41% per month, 95% CI 0.22–0.60) after outpatient CR was introduced in 2017. After propensity score-based adjustment, participation in either CR was associated with lower event rates (12.8%, 17.2%, and 21.0% at 3-year follow-up for outpatient, residential, and no CR, respectively; p &lt; 0.001). Risk reductions were significant for composite outcomes (outpatient: HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47–0.70; residential: HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68–0.93) and all-cause mortality (outpatient: HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38–0.83; residential: HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45–0.77), whereas the risk reduction for cardiovascular hospitalizations was only significant for outpatient CR (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48–0.74). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per life-year gained was €6421 and €7381 for outpatient and residential CR, respectively. Conclusions: Participation in either CR improves outcomes after myocardial infarction, but comprehensive outpatient CR conveys superior risk reductions, primarily through reduced cardiovascular hospitalizations.</dc:description><dc:date>2025</dc:date><dc:date>2025-12-05 14:04:20</dc:date><dc:type>Neznano</dc:type><dc:identifier>24560</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>UDK: 616.1</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>ISSN pri članku: 2211-8179</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>DOI: 10.5334/gh.1470</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>COBISS_ID: 248823811</dc:identifier><dc:language>sl</dc:language></metadata>
