This long-term secondary prevention programme with inpatient rehabilitation at the beginning and telephone reminder for a 3-year period was successful. There were significant differences in health-related quality of life between the IG and CG, despite the relatively positive outcomes in the CG. In this low-education (predominantly male), middle-aged cohort, the positive impact on cardiovascular risk was pronounced in the high-risk subgroup (PROCAM 10-year risk 10-40%).

The results of the 5-year follow-up show that a part of pension payment could be reduced. The evidence of cost effectiveness, independently of the methodological approach, is strong. The saving potential is reached by half in both approaches.