Table 3

Study results

StudyIntervention and comparatorNet health benefits (per patient)Net costs (per patient)Incremental cost-effectiveness ratioProbability of cost-effectiveness
Updated to common currency
Comparing CR with no CR
 Georgiou et al, 200121 Long-term moderate exercise training versus no exercise training1.82 LYG$4650$2555/life-year savedNR
 Briffa et al, 200530 Comprehensive CR plus UC versus no CR0.009 QALYs$392$42 233/QALYNR
 Huang et al, 200822 CR versus no CR76 days life expectancy$4276$20 447/life-year savedNR
 Oldridge et al, 200823 CR versus no CR0.011 QWB-derived QALYs$789$71 755 per QALY (QWB derived QALYs)58% (QWB-derived QALYs)
0.040 TTO-derived QALYs$19 740 per QALY (patient TTO-derived QALYs)83% (TTO-derived QALYs)
 Leggett et al, 201534 Centre-based outpatient CR programme versus no CR0.07 QALYs$2147$30 943/QALYNR
 Rincón et al, 201635 Exercise-based CR plus UC versus no CR programme0.009 LYG$312$3367/LYG76%
0.29 QALYs$1065/QALY
 De Gruyter et al, 201636 50% CR uptake (scenario 1) versus 30% uptakeNRNRBCR of 5.6NR
65% CR uptake (scenario 2) versus 30% uptakeNRNRBCR of 6.8NR
Comparing exercise components of CR with education
 Yu et al, 200431 CR and prevention programme (exercise and education) versus usual care (education only)0.6 QALYs−$527DominantNR
 Reed et al, 201024 Exercise training plus UC versus UC (education only)0.03 QALYs−$2938 (adjusted for baseline characteristics)Varied between dominant and $43 141/QALY59%–74%
$1294 (including patient time and out-of-pocket costs)
 Kühr et al, 201137 Supervised exercise therapy alongside standard care versus standard care0.13 LYG$2911$23 598/LYG55%
0.10 QALYs$29 498/QALY
Comparing telehealth interventions with CR based in a healthcare centre
 Cheng et al, 201638 Healthy weight intervention (pedometer based) versus UC0.04 QALYs (men)$1092 (men)$3287/QALY (men)53%
0.04 QALYs (women)$973 (women)$2630/QALY (women)
Physical activity intervention (pedometer based) versus UC0.80 QALYs (men)$1789 (men)$2227/QALY (men)46%
0.88 QALYs (women)$1625 (women)$1854/QALY (women)
 Maddison et al, 201525 Heart exercise and remote technologies mobile phone intervention plus UC versus UC (exercise and cardiac support group)NR$203†$24 385/QALY72%–90%
 Frederix et al, 201632 Cardiac telerehabilitation programme in addition to conventional centre-based CR versus centre-based CR programme0.026 QALYs−$616DominantNR
 Kidholm et al, 201626 ICT delivered individualised cardiac telerehabilitation programme versus traditional rehabilitation programme at the hospital or healthcare centre0.004 QALYs$2029$588 734/QALYNR
Comparing distribution of CR programmes
 Papadakis et al, 200833 CR programme distributed over 12 months versus standard CR over 3 months0.009 QALYs−$131Dominant63%–67%
Comparing care settings of CR programmes
 Taylor et al, 200727 Home-based CR versus hospital-based rehabilitation−0.06 QALYs$186−$3092/QALYNR
 Schweikert et al, 200928 Outpatient CR versus inpatient CR0.048 QALYs−$4200DominantNR
Comparing psychological intervention with usual care
 Lewin et al, 200940 Home-based cognitive–behavioural programme versus UCNR−$32Dominant67%
 Dehbarez et al, 201529 Learning and coping education strategies versus US (standard CR)0.005 QALYs$1131$226 128/QALY29%
  • Net costs and net health benefits reflect the time horizon adopted by the study, thus these should only be used to demonstrate whether interventions were cost saving or increasing, and whether they improved health or not.

  • BCR, Benefit Cost Ratio; CR, cardiac rehabilitation; ICT, information and communication technology; LYG, life-year gained; NR, not reported; TTO, Time Trade Off; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year;QWB, Quality of Well-being, UC, usual care.