The basic clinical characteristics of all studied pts are shown on . As it is seen in this table there were not essential differences between group A and B pts as regard age, body weight, coronary risk factors such as cholesterol, smoking habits, hypertension, diabetes mellitus.
Basic clinical characteristics of group A and B patients
A maximal treadmill stress test was performed in all pts of Group A and B at the end of the study. Group A pts had better exercise time (410±30 vs 326±20 sec, p<0.05). However there was not any significant difference among 2 groups regarding the maximal ST depression (0.16±0.03 vs 0.18±0.04 mV, p: NS), maximal achieved heart rate (160±28 vs 169±23 beats per minute, p: NS), maximal systolic blood pressure (157±14 vs 165±12 mmHg, p: NS) and double product as well (25.1 x103
vs 27.8X10 3
, p: NS). The stress test was performed while the patients were on appropriate therapy. All pts were receiving b-blockers, aspirin and nitros. In some of them additional treatment with calcium antagonists, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or other drugs was given.
The main scope of the study was to evaluate QoL and investigate any differences among groups in order to conclude if CR has any beneficial effect. On the total score of QoL in each of 3 studied groups and among them comparison is shown. Lower score indicates better quality of life. The QoL score was 94±4 for group A, 114±3 for group B and 69±3 for group C. As it is was expected QoL was better in group C pts both as compared to group A (69±3 vs 94±4, p <0.01) and group B (69±3 vs 114±3, p<0.001) as well. But the important finding of our study is the significant difference founded between group A and B pts. Patients participating in the RP had better QoL score when compared to patients not participating (94±4 vs 114±3, p<0.01). This difference indicates the beneficial effect of RP on the QoL of post infarct patients.
Total quality of life score and within 3 groups comparison
Finally the shows the values of each one parameter in each one group in parallel with statistical analysis among the 3 group (A to C, A to B, B to C). It is interesting to analyze the differences observed among the group A and B, because this difference indicates the effect of rehabilitation on QoL. As it is shown on this table in 5 parameters there was not significant difference among the 2 groups. Differences detected as regard sleep (4.7±2.3 vs 4.7±2.3, p: NS) ,emotional behavior (4.7±2.3 vs 6.8±1.7, p: NS) ,concerns for the future (4.7±2.3 vs 5.8±1.7, p: ¡S), mobility (7.5±4.7 vs 10±4.4,p: NS) and alertness behavior (4.7±2.3 vs 4.7±2.3, p: NS) were not significant. Significant differences were detected between groups A and B in some of the most important questions. Significant difference was detected regarding health or symptoms relative questions (17±6.8 vs 22±6.5, p<0.001), social interaction (21±4.2 vs 23.2±5.5, p<0.001), work and leisure time (18±4.4 vs 20±4.7, p<0.0001) and mobility (7.5±4.7 vs 10±4.4, p<0.001). Significant differences were also detected in all test parameters such as emotional behavior (4.7±2.3 vs 6.8±1.7, p<0.001), concerns for the future (4.7±2.3 vs 5.8±1.7, p<0.001), and communication as well (12±6.8 vs 16.8±1.7, p<0.0001).
Evaluation and Comparison of 9 parameters among 3 groups
As it was already mentioned the RP consisted of 30 min supervised bike exercise with parallel education, counseling and psychological support. The questionnaires were administered by a trained interviewer. The interview lasted approximately 45 min and the interviewer tried to evaluate the reaction of the patients during the administration of the questionnaires. At the end of the study a maximal treadmill stress was performed. Group A pts had better physical performance as it is concluded from exercise duration in this stress test. It is reasonable to suppose that any QoL improvement may due to this better physical performance. Unfortunately, due to limited number of study population such investigation was not done.