Clinical and cost-effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation compared to conventional, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation: Results of the FIT@Home study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kraal JJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5518918 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation compared to conventional, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation: Results of the FIT@Home study.
Kraal Jos J JJ Van den Akker-Van Marle M Elske ME Abu-Hanna Ameen A Stut Wim W Peek Niels N Kemps Hareld Mc HM
European journal of preventive cardiology 20170523 12
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- ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo 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.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesCochrane 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 methodsReference 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.Results12 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.ConclusionsHome 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.
| S-EPMC2808470 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProvision of in-centre nocturnal hemodialysis (ICNHD; 6-8 hours thrice weekly) is associated with health benefits, but the economic implications of providing this treatment are unclear.ObjectiveWe conducted a health care costing study comparing ICNHD to in-centre thrice-weekly conventional hemodialysis (CvHD).DesignMicro-costing of both ICNHD and CvHD as practiced at our centre.SettingHemodialysis unit at a tertiary-care hospital in Edmonton.ParticipantsAn informal survey of 2 other Canadian ICNHD programs was conducted to inform practices that may deviate from ours to guide sensitivity analysis.MeasurementsResources consumed for each strategy were determined, and the cost of each unit (CAN $2012) was used to calculate incremental costs of ICNHD and CvHD.MethodsWe focused on resources that differ between strategies (staffing, dialysis materials, and utilities). The reference case considered 1:3 staff to patient ratio; alternate scenarios explored nursing pay grade and ratio, full care vs. self-care dialysis (including training costs), and medication costs.ResultsIn the reference case, ICNHD was $61 more costly per dialysis treatment compared with CvHD ($9,538 per patient per year). Incremental annual costs for staffing, dialysis materials, and utilities were $8,201, $1,193, and $144, respectively. If ICNHD reduces medication use (anti-hypertensives, bone mineral metabolism medications), the incremental cost of ICNHD decreases to $8,620 per patient per year. In a scenario of self-care ICNHD utilizing a staff-to-patient ratio of 1:10, ICNHD is more costly in year 1 ($15,196), but results in cost savings of $2,625 in subsequent years compared with CvHD.LimitationsThe findings of this cost analysis may not be generalizable to other health care systems, including other parts of Canada.ConclusionsCompared to CvHD, provision of ICNHD is more expensive, largely driven by increased staffing costs as patients dialyze longer. Alternate staffing models, including self-care ICNHD with minimal staff, may lead to net cost savings. The incremental cost of treatment should be considered in the context of impact on patient health outcomes, staffing model, and pragmatic factors, such as current capacity for daytime CvHD and the capital costs of new dialysis stations.
| S-EPMC4349597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe REACH-HF (Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure) trial found that the REACH-HF home-based cardiac rehabilitation intervention resulted in a clinically meaningful improvement in disease-specific health-related quality of life in patients with reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF). The aims of this study were to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of the addition of REACH-HF intervention or home-based cardiac rehabilitation to usual care compared with usual care alone in patients with HFrEF.Design and methodsA Markov model was developed using a patient lifetime horizon and integrating evidence from the REACH-HF trial, a systematic review/meta-analysis of randomised trials, estimates of mortality and hospital admission and UK costs at 2015/2016 prices. Taking a UK National Health and Personal Social Services perspective we report the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, assessing uncertainty using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.ResultsIn base case analysis, the REACH-HF intervention was associated with per patient mean QALY gain of 0.23 and an increased mean cost of £400 compared with usual care, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of £1720. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 78% probability that REACH-HF is cost effective versus usual care at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results were similar for home-based cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care. Sensitivity analyses indicate the findings to be robust to changes in model assumptions and parameters.ConclusionsOur cost-utility analyses indicate that the addition of the REACH-HF intervention and home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are likely to be cost-effective treatment options versus usual care alone in patients with HFrEF.
| S-EPMC6628466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Physical training has beneficial effects on exercise capacity, quality of life and mortality in patients after a cardiac event or intervention and is therefore a core component of cardiac rehabilitation. However, cardiac rehabilitation uptake is low and effects tend to decrease after the initial rehabilitation period. Home-based training has the potential to increase cardiac rehabilitation uptake, and was shown to be safe and effective in improving short-term exercise capacity. Long-term effects on physical fitness and activity, however, are disappointing. Therefore, we propose a novel strategy using telemonitoring guidance based on objective training data acquired during exercise at home. In this way, we aim to improve self-management skills like self-efficacy and action planning for independent exercise and, consequently, improve long-term effectiveness with respect to physical fitness and physical activity. In addition, we aim to compare costs of this strategy with centre-based cardiac rehabilitation.This randomized controlled trial compares a 12-week telemonitoring guided home-based training program with a regular, 12-week centre-based training program of equal duration and training intensity in low to moderate risk patients entering cardiac rehabilitation after an acute coronary syndrome or cardiac intervention. The home-based group receives three supervised training sessions before they commence training with a heart rate monitor in their home environment. Participants are instructed to train at 70-85% of their maximal heart rate for 45-60 minutes, twice a week. Patients receive individual coaching by telephone once a week, based on measured heart rate data that are shared through the internet. Primary endpoints are physical fitness and physical activity, assessed at baseline, after 12 weeks and after one year. Physical fitness is expressed as peak oxygen uptake, assessed by symptom limited exercise testing with gas exchange analysis; physical activity is expressed as physical activity energy expenditure, assessed by tri-axial accelerometry and heart rate measurements. Secondary endpoints are training adherence, quality of life, patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness.This study will increase insight in long-term effectiveness and costs of home-based cardiac rehabilitation with telemonitoring guidance. This strategy is in line with the trend to shift non-complex healthcare services towards patients' home environments.Dutch Trial Register: NTR3780. Clinicaltrials.gov register: NCT01732419.
| S-EPMC3851796 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAlthough nonparticipation in cardiac rehabilitation is known to increase cardiovascular mortality and hospital readmissions, more than half of patients with coronary artery disease in Europe are not participating in cardiac rehabilitation.ObjectiveTo assess whether a 6-month guided mobile cardiac rehabilitation (MCR) program is an effective therapy for elderly patients who decline participation in cardiac rehabilitation.Design, setting, and participantsPatients were enrolled in this parallel multicenter randomized clinical trial from November 11, 2015, to January 3, 2018, and follow-up was completed on January 17, 2019, in a secondary care system with 6 cardiac institutions across 5 European countries. Researchers assessing primary outcome were masked for group assignment. A total of 4236 patients were identified with a recent diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularization, or surgical or percutaneous treatment for valvular disease, or documented coronary artery disease, of whom 996 declined to start cardiac rehabilitation. Subsequently, 179 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria consented to participate in the European Study on Effectiveness and Sustainability of Current Cardiac Rehabilitation Programmes in the Elderly trial. Data were analyzed from January 21 to October 11, 2019.InterventionsSix months of home-based cardiac rehabilitation with telemonitoring and coaching based on motivational interviewing was used to stimulate patients to reach exercise goals. Control patients did not receive any form of cardiac rehabilitation throughout the study period.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome parameter was peak oxygen uptake (Vo2peak) after 6 months.ResultsAmong 179 patients randomized (145 male [81%]; median age, 72 [range, 65-87] years), 159 (89%) were eligible for primary end point analysis. Follow-up at 1 year was completed for 151 patients (84%). Peak oxygen uptake improved in the MCR group (n = 89) at 6 and 12 months (1.6 [95% CI, 0.9-2.4] mL/kg-1/min-1 and 1.2 [95% CI, 0.4-2.0] mL/kg-1/min-1, respectively), whereas there was no improvement in the control group (n = 90) (+0.2 [95% CI, -0.4 to 0.8] mL/kg-1/min-1 and +0.1 [95% CI, -0.5 to 0.7] mL/kg-1/min-1, respectively). Changes in Vo2peak were greater in the MCR vs control groups at 6 months (+1.2 [95% CI, 0.2 to 2.1] mL/kg-1/min-1) and 12 months (+0.9 [95% CI, 0.05 to 1.8] mL/kg-1/min-1). The incidence of adverse events was low and did not differ between the MCR and control groups.Conclusions and relevanceThese results suggest that a 6-month home-based MCR program for patients 65 years or older with coronary artery disease or a valvular intervention was safe and beneficial in improving Vo2peak when compared with no cardiac rehabilitation.Trial registrationtrialregister.nl Identifier: NL5168.
| S-EPMC7593879 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to characterise the exercise performed in UK cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and explore relationships between exercise dose and changes in physiological variables.DesignObservational cohort study.SettingOutpatient community-based CR in Leeds, UK. Rehabilitation sessions were provided twice per week for 6 weeks.ParticipantsSixty patients (45 male/15 female 33-86 years) were recruited following referral to local outpatient CR.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was heart rate achieved during exercise sessions. Secondary outcomes were measured before and after CR and included incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) distance and speed, blood pressure, brachial artery flow-mediated dilatation, carotid arterial stiffness and accelerometer-derived habitual physical activity behaviours.ResultsThe mean % of heart rate reserve patients exercised at was low and variable at the start of CR (42%±16 %) and did not progress by the middle (48%±17 %) or end (48%±16 %) of the programme. ISWT performance increased following CR (440±150 m vs 633±217 m, p<0.001); however, blood pressure, body weight, endothelial function, arterial stiffness and habitual physical activity behaviours were unchanged following 6 weeks of CR (p>0.05).ConclusionPatients in a UK CR cohort exercise at intensities that are variable but generally low. The exercise dose achieved using this CR format appears inadequate to impact markers of health. Attending CR had no effect on physical activity behaviours. Strategies to increase the dose of exercise patients achieve during CR and influence habitual physical activity behaviours may enhance the effectiveness of UK CR.
| S-EPMC7549464 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHome Based Cardiac Rehabilitation (HBCR) has been considered a reasonable alternative to Center-based Cardiac Rehabilitation (CBCR) in patients with established cardiovascular disease, especially in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic. However, the long-term cardiovascular outcomes of patients referred to HBCR remains unknown.ObjectivesTo compare outcomes of patients who were referred and attended HBCR vs patients referred but did not attend HBCR (Non-HBCR).MethodsWe performed a retrospective study of 269 patients referred to HBCR at Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center (PVAMC). From November 2017 to March 2020, 427 patients were eligible and referred for Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) at PVAMC. Of total patients, 158 patients were referred to CBCR and 269 patients to HBCR based on patient and/or clinician preference. The analysis of outcomes was focused on HBCR patients. We compared outcomes of patients who were referred and attended HBCR vs patients referred but did not attend HBCR (Non-HBCR) from 3 to 12 months of the referral date. HBCR consisted of face-to-face entry exam with exercise prescription, weekly phone calls for education and exercise monitoring, with adjustments where applicable, for 12-weeks and an exit exam. Primary outcome was composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalizations. Secondary outcomes were all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations, separately. We used cox proportional methods to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI. We adjusted for imbalanced characteristics at baseline: smoking, left ventricular ejection fraction and CABG status.ResultsA total of 269 patients (mean age: 72, 98% Male) were referred to HBCR, however, only 157 (58%) patients attended HBCR. The primary outcome occurred in 30 patients (19.1%) in the HBCR group and 30 patients (30%) in the Non-HBCR group (adjusted HR=0.56, CI 0.33-0.95, P=.03). All-cause mortality occurred in 6.4% of patients in the HBCR group and 13% patients in the Non-HBCR group 3 to 12 months after HBCR referral (adjusted HR=0.43, CI 0.18-1.0, P= .05). There was no difference in cardiovascular hospitalizations (HBCR: 5.7% vs Non-HBCR: 10%, adjusted HR 0.57, CI 0.22-1.4, P= .23) or all cause hospitalizations at 3 to 12 months between the groups (HBCR: 12.7% vs Non-HBCR: 21%, adjusted HR 0.53, CI 0.28-1.01, P= .05).ConclusionCompletion of HBCR among referred patients was associated with a lower risk of the combined all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalizations up to 12 months. Based on the outcomes, HBCR is a reasonable option that can improve access to CR for patients who are not candidates of or cannot attend CBCR. Randomized-controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings.
| S-EPMC8600943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) can be an alternative to increase access for patients who cannot participate in CBCR. Hybrid cardiac rehabilitation (CR) combines short-term CBCR with HBCR, potentially allowing both flexibility and rigor. However, recent data comparing these initiatives have not been synthesized. Methods and Results We performed a meta-analysis to compare functional capacity and health-related quality of life (hr-QOL) outcomes in HF for (1) HBCR and usual care, (2) hybrid CR and usual care, and (3) HBCR and CBCR. A systematic search in 5 standard databases for randomized controlled trials was performed through January 31, 2019. Summary estimates were pooled using fixed- or random-effects (when I2>50%) meta-analyses. Standardized mean differences (95% CI) were used for distinct hr-QOL tools. We identified 31 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1791 HF participants. Among 18 studies that compared HBCR and usual care, participants in HBCR had improvement of peak oxygen uptake (2.39 mL/kg per minute; 95% CI, 0.28-4.49) and hr-QOL (16 studies; standardized mean difference: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.19-0.57). Nine RCTs that compared hybrid CR with usual care showed that hybrid CR had greater improvements in peak oxygen uptake (9.72 mL/kg per minute; 95% CI, 5.12-14.33) but not in hr-QOL (2 studies; standardized mean difference: 0.67; 95% CI, -0.20 to 1.54). Five studies comparing HBCR with CBCR showed similar improvements in functional capacity (0.0 mL/kg per minute; 95% CI, -1.93 to 1.92) and hr-QOL (4 studies; standardized mean difference: 0.11; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.34). Conclusions HBCR and hybrid CR significantly improved functional capacity, but only HBCR improved hr-QOL over usual care. However, both are potential alternatives for patients who are not suitable for CBCR.
| S-EPMC6759908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedical costs associated with cardiovascular disease are increasing considerably worldwide; therefore, an efficacious, cost-effective therapy which allows the effective use of medical resources is vital. There have been few economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), especially meta-analyses of medical cost versus patient outcome.MethodsThe target population in this meta-analysis included convalescent and comprehensive CR patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), the status most commonly observed postmyocardial infarction (MI). Here, we evaluated medical costs, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), cost-effectiveness, mortality, and life year (LY). Regarding cost-effectiveness analysis, we analyzed medical costs per QALY, medical costs per LY, and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). We then examined the differences in effects for the 2 treatment arms (CR vs. usual care (UC)) using the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD).ResultsWe reviewed 59 studies and identified 5 studies that matched our selection criteria. In total, 122,485 patients were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis results revealed that the CR arm significantly improved QALY (SMD: -1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.69, -0.87) compared with UC. Although medical costs tended to be higher in the CR arm compared to the UC arm (SMD: 0.02; 95% CI: -0.08, 0.13), cost/QALY was significantly improved in the CR arm compared with the UC arm (SMD: -0.31; 95% CI: -0.53, -0.09). The ICURs for the studies (4 RCTs and 1 model analysis) were as follows: -48,327.6 USD/QALY; -5,193.8 USD/QALY (dominant, CR is cheaper and more effective than UC); and 4,048.0 USD/QALY, 17,209.4 USD/QALY, and 26,888.7 USD/QALY (<50,000 USD/QALY, CR is costlier but more effective than UC), respectively. Therefore, there were 2 dominant and 3 effective results.ConclusionsWhile there are some limitations, primarily regarding data sources, our results suggest that CR is potentially cost-effective.
| S-EPMC6589196 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe majority of older people (> 65 years) in hospital have frailty and are at increased risk of readmission or death following discharge home. In the UK, following acute hospitalisation, around one third of older people with frailty are referred on for rehabilitation, termed 'intermediate care' services. Although this rehabilitation can reduce early readmission to hospital (< 30 days), recipients often do not feel ready to leave the service on discharge, suggesting possible incomplete recovery. Limited evidence suggests extended rehabilitation is of benefit in several conditions and there is preliminary evidence that progressive physical exercise can improve mobility and function for older people with frailty, and slow progression to disability. Our aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Home-based Older People's Exercise (HOPE) programme as extended rehabilitation for older people with frailty discharged home from hospital or intermediate care services after acute illness or injury.MethodsA multi-centre individually randomised controlled trial, to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the HOPE programme. This individualised, graded and progressive 24-week exercise programme is delivered by NHS physiotherapy teams to people aged 65 and older with frailty, identified using the Clinical Frailty Scale, following discharge from acute hospitalisation and linked intermediate care rehabilitation pathways. The primary outcome is physical health-related quality of life, measured using the physical component summary score of the modified Short Form 36- item health questionnaire (SF36) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include self-reported physical and mental health, functional independence, death, hospitalisations, care home admissions. Plans include health economic analyses and an embedded process evaluation.DiscussionThis trial seeks to determine if extended rehabilitation, via the HOPE programme, can improve physical health-related quality of life for older people with frailty following acute hospitalisation. Results will improve awareness of the rehabilitation needs of older people with frailty, and provide evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the targeted exercise intervention. There is potential for considerable benefit for health and social care services through widespread implementation of trial findings if clinical and cost-effectiveness is demonstrated.Trial registrationISRCTN 13927531 . Registered on April 19, 2017.
| S-EPMC8576988 | biostudies-literature