Dataset Information

Home based versus centre based cardiac rehabilitation: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the effect of home based and supervised centre based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with coronary heart disease.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, without language restriction, searched from 2001 to January 2008.

Review methods

Reference lists checked and advice sought from authors. Included randomised controlled trials that compared centre based cardiac rehabilitation with home based programmes in adults with acute myocardial infarction, angina, or heart failure or who had undergone coronary revascularisation. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of the identified trials and extracted data independently. Authors were contacted when possible to obtain missing information.

Results

12 studies (1938 participants) were included. Most studies recruited patients with a low risk of further events after myocardial infarction or revascularisation. No difference was seen between home based and centre based cardiac rehabilitation in terms of mortality (relative risk 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 2.66), cardiac events, exercise capacity (standardised mean difference -0.11, -0.35 to 0.13), modifiable risk factors (weighted mean difference systolic blood pressure (0.58 mm Hg, -3.29 mm Hg to 4.44 mm Hg), total cholesterol (-0.13 mmol/l, -0.31 mmol/l to 0.05 mmol/l), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.15 mmol/l, -0.31 mmol/l to 0.01 mmol/l), or relative risk for proportion of smokers at follow-up (0.98, 0.73 to 1.31)), or health related quality of life, with the exception of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.06, -0.11 to -0.02) mmol/l). In the home based participants, there was evidence of superior adherence. No consistent difference was seen in the healthcare costs of the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation.

Conclusions

Home and centre based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be equally effective in improving clinical and health related quality of life outcomes in patients with a low risk of further events after myocardial infarction or revascularisation. This finding, together with the absence of evidence of differences in patients' adherence and healthcare costs between the two approaches, supports the further provision of evidence based, home based cardiac rehabilitation programmes such as the "Heart Manual." The choice of participating in a more traditional supervised centre based or evidence based home based programme should reflect the preference of the individual patient.

SUBMITTER: Dalal HM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2808470 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aim Although cardiac rehabilitation improves physical fitness after a cardiac event, many eligible patients do not participate in cardiac rehabilitation and the beneficial effects of cardiac rehabilitation are often not maintained over time. Home-based training with telemonitoring guidance could improve participation rates and enhance long-term effectiveness. Methods and results We randomised 90 low-to-moderate cardiac risk patients entering cardiac rehabilitation to three months of either home-based training with telemonitoring guidance or centre-based training. Although training adherence was similar between groups, satisfaction was higher in the home-based group ( p?=?0.02). Physical fitness improved at discharge ( p?<?0.01) and at one-year follow-up ( p?<?0.01) in both groups, without differences between groups (home-based p?=?0.31 and centre-based p?=?0.87). Physical activity levels did not change during the one-year study period (centre-based p?=?0.38, home-based p?=?0.80). Healthcare costs were statistically non-significantly lower in the home-based group (€437 per patient, 95% confidence interval -562 to 1436, p?=?0.39). From a societal perspective, a statistically non-significant difference of €3160 per patient in favour of the home-based group was found (95% confidence interval -460 to 6780, p?=?0.09) and the probability that it was more cost-effective varied between 97% and 75% (willingness-to-pay of €0 and €100,000 per quality-adjusted life-years, respectively). Conclusion We found no differences between home-based training with telemonitoring guidance and centre-based training on physical fitness, physical activity level or health-related quality of life. However, home-based training was associated with a higher patient satisfaction and appears to be more cost-effective than centre-based training. We conclude that home-based training with telemonitoring guidance can be used as an alternative to centre-based training for low-to-moderate cardiac risk patients entering cardiac rehabilitation.

Project description:Objectives: To determine the proportion of people who achieve minimal clinically important differences (MCID) with centre-based or home-based pulmonary rehabilitation and to synthesise data on adverse events.Methods: Cochrane reviews and electronic databases were searched to identify randomised trials comparing centre-based to home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, or either model to usual care, in people with chronic respiratory disease. Primary outcomes were the proportion of participants achieving MCIDs in exercise capacity and disease-specific quality of life. Secondary outcomes were symptoms and adverse events. Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 and GRADE were used to assess the risk of bias and certainty of evidence respectively.Results: Forty-nine trials were eligible. Compared to usual care, a higher proportion of pulmonary rehabilitation participants achieved the MCID for exercise capacity (6MWT: 47% vs 20%, p = 0.11), dyspnoea (43% vs 29%, p = 0.0001), fatigue (48% vs 27%, p = 0.0002) and emotional function (37% vs 25%, p = 0.02), with all of these between group differences statistically significant except for exercise capacity. There were no differences between centre-based and home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in the proportion of participants who achieved MCIDs (34%- 58% across studies). Ninety percent of trials reported no adverse events. Certainty of evidence was low-to- moderate with all outcomes except for CRQ-mastery (centre-based vs home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, or pulmonary rehabilitation vs usual care in COPD), ESWT (pulmonary rehabilitation vs usual care in COPD) and 6MWT (pulmonary rehabilitation vs usual care in bronchiectasis) where evidence was very uncertain.Discussion: Clinically meaningful outcomes are achieved by similar proportions of participants in centre-based and home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, with few adverse events. Reporting of trial outcomes according to MCIDs is necessary for informed decision making regarding pulmonary rehabilitation models.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the long term effects of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain.DesignSystematic review and random effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesElectronic searches of Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases up to February 2014, supplemented by hand searching of reference lists and forward citation tracking of included trials.Study selection criteriaTrials published in full; participants with low back pain for more than three months; multidisciplinary rehabilitation involved a physical component and one or both of a psychological component or a social or work targeted component; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was delivered by healthcare professionals from at least two different professional backgrounds; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was compared with a non- multidisciplinary intervention.ResultsForty one trials included a total of 6858 participants with a mean duration of pain of more than one year who often had failed previous treatment. Sixteen trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.37; equivalent to 0.5 points in a 10 point pain scale) and disability (0.23, 0.06 to 0.40; equivalent to 1.5 points in a 24 point Roland-Morris index) compared with usual care. Nineteen trials provided low quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.51, -0.01 to 1.04) and disability (0.68, 0.16 to 1.19) compared with physical treatments, but significant statistical heterogeneity across trials was present. Eight trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation improves the odds of being at work one year after intervention (odds ratio 1.87, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.53) compared with physical treatments. Seven trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation does not improve the odds of being at work (odds ratio 1.04, 0.73 to 1.47) compared with usual care. Two trials that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation with surgery found little difference in outcomes and an increased risk of adverse events with surgery.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation interventions were more effective than usual care (moderate quality evidence) and physical treatments (low quality evidence) in decreasing pain and disability in people with chronic low back pain. For work outcomes, multidisciplinary rehabilitation seems to be more effective than physical treatment but not more effective than usual care.