Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2022 Sep 12;12(1):15348.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-19467-z.

Prevalence and determinants of return to work after various coronary events: meta-analysis of prospective studies

Samantha Huo Yung Kai  1   2 , Jean Ferrières  1   3 , Mélisande Rossignol  4 , Frédéric Bouisset  1   3 , Julie Herry  4 , Yolande Esquirol  5   6
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Prevalence and determinants of return to work after various coronary events: meta-analysis of prospective studies

Samantha Huo Yung Kai et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Return to work (RTW) after a coronary event remains a major concern. This systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies published between January 1988 and August 2020, aim to evaluate the prevalence of RTW after a coronary event (myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angina pectoris) and to assess the determinants of RTW (such as follow-up duration, date of recruitment, country, gender, occupational factors, etc.). PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines were followed. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects models were carried out to determine pooled prevalence estimates and 95% confident interval. A total of 43 prospective studies (34,964 patients) were investigated. RTW overall random effects pooled prevalence was estimated at 81.1% [95% CI 75.8-85.8]. Country, year of implementation or gender did not significantly modify the prevalence estimates. Lower level of education and degraded left ventricular ejection fraction decreased RTW prevalence estimates (respectively, 76.1% vs 85.6% and 65.3% vs 77.8%). RTW prevalence estimates were higher for white-collars (81.2% vs 65.0% for blue-collars) and people with low physical workload (78.3% vs 64.1% for elevated physical workload).Occupational physical constraints seem to have a negative role in RTW while psycho-logical factors at work are insufficiently investigated. A better understanding of the real-life working conditions influencing RTW would be useful to maintain coronary patients in the labor market.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Random-effects meta-analysis of return-to-work prevalence according to the type of events. The squares and horizontal lines correspond to the study-specific prevalence and 95% CIs. Proportionally sized boxes represent the weight of each study. The diamond represents the pooled prevalence and 95% CI of the overall population. The horizontal thick line corresponds to the 95% prediction interval.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Return-to-work prevalence according to follow-up time.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Random-effects meta-analysis of return-to-work prevalence according to socio-professional category. The squares and horizontal lines correspond to the study-specific prevalence and 95% CIs. Proportionally sized boxes represent the weight of each study. The diamond represents the pooled prevalence and 95% CI of the overall population. The horizontal thick line corresponds to the 95% prediction interval.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Random-effects meta-analysis of return-to-work prevalence according to occupational physical activity. The squares and horizontal lines correspond to the study-specific prevalence and 95% CIs. Proportionally sized boxes represent the weight of each study. The diamond represents the pooled prevalence and 95% CI of the overall population. The horizontal thick line corresponds to the 95% prediction interval.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Harper S, Lynch J, Smith GD. Social determinants and the decline of cardiovascular diseases: Understanding the links. Annu. Rev. Public Health. 2011;32:39–69. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101234. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Anderson L, et al. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2016;67:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.044. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sérvio TC, et al. Barriers to cardiac rehabilitation delivery in a low-resource setting from the perspective of healthcare administrators, rehabilitation providers, and cardiac patients. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2019;19:1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4463-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Urbinati S, Tonet E. Cardiac rehabilitation after STEMI. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2018;66:464–470. - PubMed
    1. Roth GA, et al. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, 1990–2019: Update from the GBD 2019 study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020;76:2982–3021. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.010. - DOI - PMC - PubMed