MD; for the OMEGA Study GroupBackground-There is no randomized, double-blind trial testing the prognostic effect of highly purified omega-3 fatty acids in addition to current guideline-adjusted treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Methods and Results-OMEGA is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial testing the effects of omega-3-acid ethyl esters-90 (1 g/d for 1 year) on the rate of sudden cardiac death in survivors of acute myocardial infarction, if given in addition to current guideline-adjusted treatment. Secondary end points were total mortality and nonfatal clinical events. Patients (nϭ3851; female, 25.6%; mean age, 64.0 years) were randomized in 104 German centers 3 to 14 days after acute myocardial infarction from October 2003 until June 2007. Acute coronary angiography was performed in 93.8% and acute percutaneous coronary intervention in 77.8% of all patients. During a follow-up of 365 days, the event rates were (omega and control groups) as follows: sudden cardiac death, 1.5% and 1.5% (Pϭ0.84); total mortality, 4.6% and 3.7% (Pϭ0.18); major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events, 10.4% and 8.8% (Pϭ0.1); and revascularization in survivors, 27.6% and 29.1% (Pϭ0.34). Conclusions-Guideline-adjusted treatment of acute myocardial infarction results in a low rate of sudden cardiac death and other clinical events within 1 year of follow-up, which could not be shown to be further reduced by the application of omega-3 fatty acids. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.

This meta-analysis demonstrated that omega-3 fatty acids had no significant association with fatal or nonfatal coronary heart disease or any major vascular events. It provides no support for current recommendations for the use of such supplements in people with a history of coronary heart disease.

BackgroundThe prognostic effect of multi-component cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in the modern era of statins and acute revascularisation remains controversial. Focusing on actual clinical practice, the aim was to evaluate the effect of CR on total mortality and other clinical endpoints after an acute coronary event.DesignStructured review and meta-analysis.MethodsRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), retrospective controlled cohort studies (rCCSs) and prospective controlled cohort studies (pCCSs) evaluating patients after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or mixed populations with coronary artery disease (CAD) were included, provided the index event was in 1995 or later.ResultsOut of n = 18,534 abstracts, 25 studies were identified for final evaluation (RCT: n = 1; pCCS: n = 7; rCCS: n = 17), including n = 219,702 patients (after ACS: n = 46,338; after CABG: n = 14,583; mixed populations: n = 158,781; mean follow-up: 40 months). Heterogeneity in design, biometrical assessment of results and potential confounders was evident. CCSs evaluating ACS patients showed a significantly reduced mortality for CR participants (pCCS: hazard ratio (HR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20–0.69; rCCS: HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49–0.84; odds ratio 0.20, 95% CI 0.08–0.48), but the single RCT fulfilling Cardiac Rehabilitation Outcome Study (CROS) inclusion criteria showed neutral results. CR participation was also associated with reduced mortality after CABG (rCCS: HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54–0.70) and in mixed CAD populations.ConclusionsCR participation after ACS and CABG is associated with reduced mortality even in the modern era of CAD treatment. However, the heterogeneity of study designs and CR programmes highlights the need for defining internationally accepted standards in CR delivery and scientific evaluation.

Despite major improvements in diagnostics and interventional therapies, cardiovascular diseases remain a major health care and socio-economic burden both in western and developing countries, in which this burden is increasing in close correlation to economic growth. Health authorities and the general population have started to recognize that the fight against these diseases can only be won if their burden is faced by increasing our investment on interventions in lifestyle changes and prevention. There is an overwhelming evidence of the efficacy of secondary prevention initiatives including cardiac rehabilitation in terms of reduction in morbidity and mortality. However, secondary prevention is still too poorly implemented in clinical practice, often only on selected populations and over a limited period of time. The development of systematic and full comprehensive preventive programmes is warranted, integrated in the organization of national health systems. Furthermore, systematic monitoring of the process of delivery and outcomes is a necessity. Cardiology and secondary prevention, including cardiac rehabilitation, have evolved almost independently of each other and although each makes a unique contribution it is now time to join forces under the banner of preventive cardiology and create a comprehensive model that optimizes long term outcomes for patients and reduces the future burden on health care services. These are the aims that the Cardiac Rehabilitation Section of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation has foreseen to promote secondary preventive cardiology in clinical practice.

The beneficial effect of exercise training and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on symptom-free exercise capacity,cardiovascular and skeletal muscle function, quality of life, general healthy lifestyle, and reduction of depressive symptoms and psychosocial stress is nowadays well recognized. However, it remains largely obscure, which characteristics of physical activity (PA) and exercise training--frequency, intensity, time (duration), type (mode), and volume (dose: intensity x duration) of exercise--are the most effective. The present paper, therefore, will deal with these exercise characteristics in the management of individuals with cardiovascular disease, i.e. coronary artery disease and chronic heart failure patients, but also in patients with congenital or valvular heart disease. Based on the current literature, and if sufficient evidence is available, recommendations from the European Association on Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation are formulated regarding frequency, intensity, time and type of PA, and safety aspects during exercise inpatients with cardiovascular disease. This paper is the third in a series of three papers, all devoted to the same theme: the importance of the exercise characteristics in the management of cardiovascular health. Part I is directed to the general population and Part II to individuals with cardiovascular risk factors. In general, PA recommendations and exercise training programmes for patients with coronary artery disease or chronic heart failure need to be tailored to the individual's exercise capacity and risk profile, with the aim to reach and maintain the individually highest fitness level possible and to perform endurance exercise training 30–60 min daily (3–5 days per week) in combination with resistance training 2–3 times a week. Because of the frequently reported dose–response relationship between training effect and exercise intensity, one should seek sufficiently high training intensities, although more scientific evidence on effect sizes and safety is warranted. At present, there is insufficient data to give more specific recommendations on type, dosage, and intensity of exercise in some other cardiovascular diseases, such as congenital heart disease, valve disease, cardiomyopathies, channelopathies, and patients with implanted devices.