High-certainty evidence for preventing further heart attacks. Around 40% of eligible people never attend. And every programme has an end date, after which nothing is waiting.
Cardiac rehabilitation is one of the better things the NHS does. It is evidence-based, it is recommended at the highest level by every major cardiology body, and it is delivered by people who know what they are doing.
It also ends. Usually somewhere between six and twelve weeks after it starts, at which point the person who has just been taught how to exercise safely after a heart attack goes home and is largely left to it.
That gap is what this article is about. But it is only worth discussing honestly if we are equally honest about what cardiac rehab does, and about what the evidence does and does not show.
The 2021 Cochrane review of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease is the reference point. It is worth reading the findings carefully, because they are more textured than the headline.
At six to twelve months, exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation produced:
That last point deserves attention, because it is not what most people say about cardiac rehab. Earlier versions of this review, and a separate 2023 meta-analysis of 85 trials and over 23,000 participants, reported a clearer reduction in cardiovascular mortality — a risk ratio of 0.74. The 2021 Cochrane update was more conservative at short-term follow-up.
Both analyses exist. The direction of benefit is consistent. But anyone telling you cardiac rehab definitely saves lives within the first year is overstating a picture that is genuinely mixed on mortality — while being on very firm ground about heart attacks and hospital admissions.
It is also safe. An observational study of more than 25,000 people undergoing cardiac rehab found roughly one cardiac event per 50,000 hours of supervised exercise training. Exercising after a cardiac event, properly supervised, is not the risk people fear it is.
The first is that most people never go. Despite being a Class I recommendation, overall participation in cardiac rehabilitation has sat at around 40% in recent decades. Referral, enrolment and completion are all sub-optimal, and they are worst among women and older people — the groups who often have the most to gain.
The second is that it finishes. This is the one I want to focus on, because it is less discussed and more fixable.
Every trial in that Cochrane review tested a programme with an end date. The benefits were measured after that end date. Which raises the obvious question: what maintains them?
Fitness gained over twelve weeks is not permanent. Cardiorespiratory capacity declines when training stops, and it declines fairly quickly. The strength and confidence built in a supervised gym with a physiotherapist watching does not automatically survive the transition to a living room in February.
So the person completes their programme, is discharged, and enters a period with no structure, no supervision, no progression, and nobody measuring whether the gains are holding. That period lasts for the rest of their life.
I helped write the exercise guidelines for cardiac rehabilitation at an NHS rehabilitation hospital, working with my wife, who is a clinical lead physiotherapist in neurological rehabilitation. That work gave me a close view of how carefully these programmes are designed and how much thought goes into risk stratification, progression and safety.
It also made the discharge point very visible. The programme is built to a standard. What comes after it is built to nothing.
That is not a criticism of cardiac rehab or of the people delivering it. They are commissioned to deliver a defined intervention over a defined period, and they do it well. It is an observation about where the system stops and where somebody else could reasonably start.
Three places, and I want to be precise about the boundaries of each.
Maintaining and progressing capacity after discharge. This is the clearest one. Continuing to build cardiorespiratory fitness and strength after a supervised programme ends is not a fringe activity — it is the thing the programme was preparing you for. Progressive resistance training, aerobic capacity work, and the boring business of consistency over years rather than weeks.
Measuring rather than assuming. Almost nobody knows what happened to their capacity after discharge, because nobody measured it. Walking capacity, strength, and how you actually feel doing the things you want to do are all trackable, and tracking them tends to change behaviour on its own.
The metabolic picture underneath. This is where blood testing has a genuine role, and where I need to be careful not to oversell it.
Standard lipid panels report LDL cholesterol. Apolipoprotein B counts the actual number of atherogenic particles, and is increasingly recognised as the better marker of risk — two people with identical LDL-C can carry very different particle numbers. Lipoprotein(a) is largely genetically determined, is not much affected by diet or statins, and identifies people carrying a substantial inherited risk that a standard panel misses entirely. It needs testing once in a lifetime, and most people have never had it done.
Those are real, they are measurable, and they belong in the conversation with your cardiologist or GP rather than instead of it. What they do not do is replace or second-guess your medical management. Testing that tells you something actionable is worth doing. Testing that generates a report and a supplement list is not.
Everything above sits alongside cardiology, never instead of it.
Your medications are not negotiable on my say-so. Statins, antiplatelets, beta blockers, ACE inhibitors and anticoagulants have evidence behind them that nothing in nutritional practice comes close to, and a practitioner who encourages you to reduce or stop them is doing you harm. If you have concerns about your medication, that conversation belongs with the person who prescribed it.
If you have been offered cardiac rehabilitation, go. If you were offered it and did not go, ask whether you can still be referred — and if the answer is no, that is a reason to build something structured yourself, not a reason to do nothing.
And if you develop new or worsening chest pain, breathlessness, palpitations or swelling, that is not something to manage with exercise and nutrition. That is a medical assessment, promptly.
Cardiac rehabilitation works, particularly for preventing further heart attacks and hospital admissions. Most eligible people never do it. Of those who do, all of them reach a point where it stops, and very few have anything structured waiting on the other side.
Filling that gap does not require anyone to make claims about reversing heart disease, or about tests that reveal what cardiology missed. It requires the unglamorous work of keeping someone training after the supervised programme has ended, and measuring whether it is working.
That is a smaller offer than the ones usually made in this space. It is also the one supported by the evidence.
This article is general information and not medical advice. Decisions about cardiac care and medication belong with your cardiology team or GP.
Sources
Dibben G, Faulkner J, Oldridge N, Rees K, Thompson DR, Zwisler AD, Taylor RS. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2021;11:CD001800.
Dibben G, et al. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis. European Heart Journal 2023.
Kotseva K, et al. Participation rates in cardiac rehabilitation, as cited in Dibben 2021.
Capacity built over twelve weeks does not maintain itself. Measuring it is the start.
Ask AIdan → See the TDG Programme