Abstract:People with coronary heart disease (CHD) often require prolonged absences from work to convalesce after acute disease events like myocardial infarctions (MI) or revascularisation procedures such as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Reduced functional capacity and anxiety due to CHD may further delay or prevent return to work. To assess the effects of person‐ and work‐directed interventions aimed at enhancing return to work in patients with coronary heart disease compared to usual care or no intervention. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, NIOSHTIC, NIOSHTIC‐2, HSELINE, CISDOC, and LILACS through 11 October 2018. We also searched the US National Library of Medicine registry, clinicaltrials.gov, to identify ongoing studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining return to work among people with CHD who were provided either an intervention or usual care. Selected studies included only people treated for MI or who had undergone either a CABG or PCI. At least 80% of the study population should have been working prior to the CHD and not at the time of the trial, or study authors had to have considered a return‐to‐work subgroup. We included studies in all languages. Two review authors independently selected the studies and consulted a third review author to resolve disagreements. Two review authors extracted data and independently assessed the risk of bias. We conducted meta‐analyses of rates of return to work and time until return to work. We considered the secondary outcomes, health‐related quality of life and adverse events among studies where at least 80% of study participants were eligible to return to work. We found 39 RCTs (including one cluster‐ and four three‐armed RCTs). We included the return‐to‐work results of 34 studies in the meta‐analyses. Person‐directed, psychological counselling versus usual care We included 11 studies considering return to work following psychological interventions among a subgroup of 615 participants in the meta‐analysis. Most interventions used some form of counselling to address participants' disease‐related anxieties and provided information on the causes and course of CHD to dispel misconceptions. We do not know if these interventions increase return to work up to six months (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.40; six studies; very low‐certainty evidence) or at six to 12 months (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; seven studies; very low‐certainty evidence). We also do not know if psychological interventions shorten the time until return to work. Psychological interventions may have little or no effect on the proportion of participants working between one and five years (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.34; three studies; low‐certainty evidence). Person‐directed, work‐directed counselling versus usual care Four studies examined work‐directed counselling. These counselling interventions included advising patients when to return to work based on treadmill testing or extended counselling to include co‐workers' fears and misconceptions regarding CHD. Work‐directed counselling may result in little to no difference in the mean difference (MD) in days until return to work (MD −7.52 days, 95% CI −20.07 to 5.03 days; four studies; low‐certainty evidence). Work‐directed counselling probably results in little to no difference in cardiac deaths (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.39; two studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). Person‐directed, physical conditioning interventions versus usual care Nine studies examined the impact of exercise programmes. Compared to usual care, we do not know if physical interventions increase return to work up to six months (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41; four studies; very low‐certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions may result in little to no difference in return‐to‐work rates at six to 12 months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.20; five studies; low‐certainty evidence), and may also result in little to no difference on the rates of patients working after one year (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; two studies; low‐certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions may result in little to no difference in the time needed to return to work (MD −7.86 days, 95% CI −29.46 to 13.74 days; four studies; low‐certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions probably do not increase cardiac death rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.80; two studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). Person‐directed, combined interventions versus usual care We included 13 studies considering return to work following combined interventions in the meta‐analysis. Combined cardiac rehabilitation programmes may have increased return to work up to six months (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.98; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5; four studies; low‐certainty -Abstract Truncated-

Work-related outcome after acute coronary syndrome: Implications of complex cardiac rehabilitation in occupational medicine

Determinants of Return to Work After Multicomponent Cardiac Rehabilitation

[{Health and work after invasive heart procedures, rehabilitation and occupational evaluation]]

[ReTurn To work of coronary patient: RTT French multicentre study]

Patient-reported outcomes predict return to work and health-related quality of life six months after cardiac rehabilitation: Results from a German multi-centre registry (OutCaRe)

Predicting return to work after acute myocardial infarction: Socio-occupational factors overcome clinical conditions

[Improvement of worklife participation through vocationally oriented cardiac rehabilitation? Findings of a randomized control group study]

Psychosocial outcomes after a home cardiac rehabilitation program

Return to Work in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

Rehabilitation outcomes following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI)

Myocardial Work Assessment in Patients after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting during Cardiac Rehabilitation

The Relationship Between Coronary Artery Angiographic Characteristics, Occupational Factors, and Return to Work

Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease.

Impact of and Reasons for Not Performing Exercise Training After an Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Setting of an Interdisciplinary Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: Results From a Risk-Op- Acute Coronary Syndrome Ambispective Registry

Outcomes of post-acute coronary syndrome patients enrolled in a phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation program

Cardiac Rehabilitation after an Acute Coronary Syndrome: The Impact in Elderly Patients

The Benefits of a Comprehensive Cardiac Rehabilitation Program for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Follow-Up Study

Outcomes With Multidisciplinary Cardiac Rehabilitation in Post-acute Systolic Heart Failure Patients—A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Study

Clinical outcomes after a home cardiac rehabilitation program

High-intensity, sport-specific cardiac rehabilitation training of a 22-year-old competitive cyclist after spontaneous coronary artery dissection

The Impact of Cardiac Rehabilitation on Activities of Daily Life in Elderly Patients With Heart Failure