Coronary disease & ACSCross-sectional study

Clinician and Patient Perspectives on Cardiac Rehabilitation for Type 1 vs Type 2 Myocardial Infarction

JACC AdvPublished

  • cross-sectional study
  • survey

Authors' conclusion

Clinicians self-reported lower CR referral frequency after type 2 MI than after type 1 MI, with lower perceived benefit and barriers related to CR eligibility and referral process familiarity. Most patients with type 2 MI perceive CR as beneficial and report hypothetical willingness to participate if referred.

Study context

Population
Clinicians across Mass General Brigham and type 2 myocardial infarction (MI) inpatients at a single academic centerclinicians 118 · type 2 MI inpatients 50
Exposure
perceptions of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) after type 1 vs type 2 MI

Main finding

As reported in the abstract

Clinicians self-reporting "always" or "often" referring patients

Paired difference

−50.0 percentage points

95% CI −59.4 to −40.2

P < 0.001

By group

type 2 MI vs type 1 MI
paired difference −50.0 percentage points (95% CI −59.4 to −40.2); P < 0.001

Observational data: associations, not effects.

Further findings

Outcometype 2 MItype 1 MIpaired difference (percentage points) (95% CI)P value
Clinicians perceiving CR as beneficial69.1%98.2%−29.1 (−38.2 to −21.4)P < 0.001
Clinicians rating CR as safe92.7%99.1%−6.4 (−12.6 to −2.8)P = 0.02

Perceptions among patients with type 2 MI

perceived CR as beneficial
90%
believed CR would improve safety returning to activity
80%
would likely attend if referred
82%

Survey response

clinicians completing survey from invitations
118 clinicians from 2,250 invitations

Original publication

Clinician and Patient Perspectives on Cardiac Rehabilitation for Type 1 vs Type 2 Myocardial Infarction. JACC Adv. Published 22 September 2026. doi:10.1016/j.jacadv.2026.103230

Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it