Andrei Constantin Anghel

Background/Objectives: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is known to improve clinical outcomes in cardiovascular disease, yet its benefits in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) are not well established. This meta-analysis evaluated the impact of CR on functional capacity and safety in ICD recipients. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) involving adults who underwent ICD implantation and were assigned to either CR or standard care. The primary outcome was the change in peak oxygen uptake (peak VO₂) from the baseline to the final follow-up. Random-effects models were applied, and subgroup analyses were conducted based on follow-up duration, supervision type, baseline peak VO₂, and ischemic vs. non-ischemic etiology. Results: Seven RCTs involving 1461 participants (784 CR; 677 control) met the inclusion criteria. CR was associated with a significant improvement peak VO₂ compared with usual care, expressed as the mean difference (MD) in change from the baseline to the last follow-up (MD 2 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹; 95% CI 1.02–2.81; I² = 65.7%), with consistent effects across all subgroups. Quality of life improved in the CR group (MD 6.46; 95% CI 2.25–10.67; I² = 0%). A non-significant trend toward increased 6MWT distance was observed. CR did not increase adverse events, including ICD shocks, hospitalizations, or cardiac deaths. Conclusions: CR safely enhances exercise capacity and quality of life in ICD recipients without increasing arrhythmic events or mortality. Larger standardized trials are warranted to optimize CR delivery in this population.

Background: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are at elevated risk for device-related complications following pacemaker implantation. Leadless pacemakers (LPMs) offer theoretical advantages over transvenous pacemakers (TVPs), but their safety and efficacy in this high-risk population remain unclear. Our aim was to compare clinical outcomes and complication profiles between leadless and transvenous pacemakers in patients with ESRD. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines, including three retrospective studies comparing LPMs and TVPs in ESRD patients. The primary endpoint was overall complications post-implantation. Secondary outcomes included early mortality (within 30 days), access site complications, device-related events, thrombotic events, and respiratory complications. A random-effects model was used to pool odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Three studies comprising 10.075 ESRD patients were included. No significant difference was found in overall complications (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.78–2.33, p = 0.14) or early mortality (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.42–2.43, p = 0.97) between LPM and TVP groups. However, LPMs were associated with increased access site complications (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.06–5.90, p = 0.04), thrombotic events (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.14–1.78, p = 0.03), and respiratory complications (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.01–2.03, p = 0.05). Device-related complication rates were similar (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.63–1.88; p = 0.30). Heterogeneity was low across most outcomes. Conclusions: Among patients with ESRD, leadless pacemakers did not reduce overall complications or short-term mortality compared to transvenous systems and were associated with increased risk of certain procedural complications. These findings could support a personalized approach to device selection in ESRD and highlight the need for further prospective studies to guide clinical decision-making in this population.