Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Cardiac rehabilitation mortality trends: how far from a true picture are we?
  1. Alison Beauchamp1,2,
  2. Marian Worcester1,3,
  3. Barbara Murphy1,3,
  4. James Tatoulis4,
  5. Andrew Ng1,5
  1. 1Heart Research Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2Population Health SRC, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  4. 4Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  5. 5Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Alison Beauchamp, Heart Research Centre, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Box 2137, Post Office, Melbourne, Victoria 3050, Australia; alison.beauchamp{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

To the Editor, Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this editorial,1 which questions our findings of a greater mortality risk of 58% for cardiac rehabilitation (CR) non-attenders compared to attenders.1 ,2 While this effect size is larger than some reports, benefits of this magnitude have been seen by other studies with patient samples comparable to ours. These recent studies found similar effect sizes of 45–59%.3–5

The authors also comment that ‘it may be that Melbourne CR programmes are really that good’.1 A 1996 survey of Victorian CR programmes conducted by the …

View Full Text


  • Contributors AB contributed to manuscript preparation and accepts overall responsibility for the publication. MW, JT, AN and BM assisted with data preparation.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval Ethics approval was granted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles