Skip to main content


Table 2 Summary of economic evaluations comparing supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) vs no cardiac rehabilitation (No-CR)

From: A systematic review of economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation

Author (Year) Perspective Patient populations Study type Currency, price year Findings
Levin et al. (1991) Societal N = 305 after MI CCA Swedish kroner, ?year CR: SEK73,500 less per patient
Ades et al. 1992 Patients/ payers N = 580 after MI/CABG CCA US dollars, 1991 CR: $739 less in hospitalization costs per patient
Oldridge et al. (1993) Societal N = 201 after MI CUA/ modelling US dollars, 1991 CR: $21,800 per life-year gained; $9,200 per QALY gained at 1 year
Ades et al. (1997) Patients/ Payers Not applicable Economic modeling US dollars, 1995 CR: $4,950 per year of life saved
Georgiou et al. (2001) Societal N = 99 with HF CEA US dollars, 1999 ICER = $1,773 per life year saved in favour of CR
Marchionni et al. (2003) Government or care providers N = 158 with MI CCA US dollars, 2000 CR: $21,298 per patient vs $12,433 per patient in No-CR group
Yu et al. (2004) Government N = 204 after MI or PCI CUA US dollars, ?year ICUR = $650 per QALY in favour of CR
Huang et al. (2008) Government N = 4,324 after CABG CEA US dollars, 1998 ICER = 13,887 per year of life saved in favour of CR
Dendale et al. (2008) Health care payers N = 213 after PCI CEA Euro, ?year CR: 4,862€ per patient and 5,498€ per patient in No-CR group
  1. MI, myocardial infarction. HF, heart failure. CABG, coronary artery bypass graft surgery. PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention. CCA, cost-consequences analysis. CEA, cost-effectiveness analysis. CUA, cost-utility analysis. QALY, quality-adjusted life-years. ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. ICUR, incremental cost-utility ratio.