Dataset Information

Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation Alone and Hybrid With Center-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Imran HM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6759908 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation Alone and Hybrid With Center-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Imran Hafiz M HM Baig Muhammad M Erqou Sebhat S Taveira Tracey H TH Shah Nishant R NR Morrison Alan A Choudhary Gaurav G Wu Wen-Chih WC

Journal of the American Heart Association 20190817 16

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 ...[more]

PMID: 31423874

Similar Datasets

Project description:Exercise tolerance and cardiac output have a major impact on the quality of life (QOL) of patients experiencing heart failure (HF). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation can significantly improve not only exercise tolerance but also peak oxygen uptake ((Equation is included in full-text article.)peak), and the QOL in patients with HF. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the beneficial effects of home-based cardiac rehabilitation on the quality of medical care in patients with chronic HF.This study was a randomized prospective trial. HF patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of less than 50% were included in this study. We randomly assigned patients to the control group (n?=?18) and the interventional group (n?=?19). Within the interventional group, we arranged individualized rehabilitation programs, including home-based cardiac rehabilitation, diet education, and management of daily activity over a 3-month period. Information such as general data, laboratory data, Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test (CPET) results, Six-minute Walk Test (6MWT) results, and the scores for the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) before and after the intervention, was collected from all patients in this study.Patients enrolled in the home-based cardiac rehabilitation programs displayed statistically significant improvement in (Equation is included in full-text article.)peak (18.2?±?4.1 vs 20.9?±?6.6?mL/kg/min, P?=?.02), maximal 6-Minute Walking Distance (6MWD) (421?±?90 vs 462?±?74?m, P?=?.03), anaerobic threshold (12.4?±?2.5 vs 13.4?±?2.6?mL/kg/min, P?=?.005), and QOL. In summary, patients receiving home-based cardiac rehabilitation experienced a 14.2% increase in (Equation is included in full-text article.)peak, a 37% increase in QOL score, and an improvement of 41?m on the 6MWD test. The 90-day readmission rate for patients reduced to 5% from 14% after receiving cardiac rehabilitation.Home-based cardiac rehabilitation offered the most improved results in functional capacity, QOL, and a reduced the rate of readmission within 90 days.

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients the effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on top of state-of-the-art pharmacological and device therapy on mortality, hospitalization, exercise capacity and quality-of-life are not well established. DESIGN:The design of this study involved a structured review and meta-analysis. METHODS:Evaluation of randomised controlled trials of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in HFrEF-patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ?40% of any aetiology with a follow-up of ?6 months published in 1999 or later. RESULTS:Out of 12,229 abstracts, 25 randomised controlled trials including 4481 HFrEF-patients were included in the final evaluation. Heterogeneity in study population, study design and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation-intervention was evident. No significant difference in the effect of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality compared to control-group was found (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.39-1.41, four studies; 12-months follow-up: relative risk 1.29, 95% confidence interval 0.66-2.49, eight studies; six-months follow-up: relative risk 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.26-3.16, seven studies). In addition there was no significant difference between the groups with respect to 'hospitalization-for-any-reason' (12-months follow-up: relative risk 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.41-1.53, four studies), or 'hospitalization-due-to-heart-failure' (12-months follow-up: relative risk 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.12-2.91, four studies; six-months follow-up: relative risk 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.07-9.71, three studies). All studies show improvement of exercise capacity. Participation in exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation significantly improved quality-of-life as evaluated with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire: (six-months follow-up: mean difference 1.94, 95% confidence interval 0.35-3.56, two studies), but no significant results emerged for quality-of-life measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (nine-months or more follow-up: mean difference -4.19, 95% confidence interval -10.51-2.12, seven studies; six-months follow-up: mean difference -5.97, 95% confidence interval -16.17-4.23, four studies). CONCLUSION:No association between exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation and mortality or hospitalisation could be observed in HFrEF patients but exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation is likely to improve exercise capacity and quality of life.

Project description:IntroductionCardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves health-related quality of life and reduces hospital admissions. However, patients with heart failure (HF) often fail to attend centre-based CR programmes. Novel ways of delivering healthcare, such as home-based CR programmes, may improve uptake of CR. Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) is a new, effective and cost-effective home-based CR programme for people with HF. The aim of this prospective mixed-method implementation evaluation study is to assess the implementation of the REACH-HF CR programme in the UK National Health Service (NHS). The specific objectives are to (1) explore NHS staff perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of REACH-HF, (2) assess the quality of delivery of the programme in real-life clinical settings, (3) consider the nature of any adaptation(s) made and how they might impact on intervention effectiveness and (4) compare real-world patient outcomes to those seen in a prior clinical trial.Methods and analysisREACH-HF will be rolled out in four NHS CR centres across the UK. Three healthcare professionals from each site will be trained to deliver the 12-week programme. In-depth qualitative interviews and focus groups will be conducted with approximately 24 NHS professionals involved in delivering or commissioning the programme. Consultations for 48 patients (12 per site) will be audio recorded and scored using an intervention fidelity checklist. Outcomes routinely recorded in the National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation will be analysed and compared with outcomes from a recent randomised controlled trial: the Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire and exercise capacity (Incremental Shuttle Walk Test). Qualitative research findings will be mapped onto the Normalisation Process Theory framework and presented in the form of a narrative synthesis. Results of the study will inform national roll-out of REACH-HF.Ethics and disseminationThe study (IRAS 261723) has received ethics approval from the South Central (Hampshire B) Research Ethics Committee (19/SC/0304). Written informed consent will be obtained from all health professionals and patients participating in the study. The research team will ensure that the study is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the Data Protection Act 2018, General Data Protection Regulations and in accordance with the Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care (2005). Findings will be published in scientific peer-reviewed journals and presented at local, national and international meetings to publicise and explain the research methods and findings to key audiences to facilitate the further uptake of the REACH-HF intervention.Trial registrationISRCTN86234930.

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:ObjectivesThis study aimed to identify barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation of the Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) programme within existing cardiac rehabilitation services, and develop and refine the REACH-HF Service Delivery Guide (an implementation guide cocreated with healthcare professionals). REACH-HF is an effective and cost-effective 12-week home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme for patients with heart failure.Setting/participantsIn 2019, four early adopter 'Beacon Sites' were set up to deliver REACH-HF to 200 patients. In 2020, 5 online REACH-HF training events were attended by 85 healthcare professionals from 45 National Health Service (NHS) teams across the UK and Ireland.DesignOur mixed-methods study used in-depth semi-structured interviews and an online survey. Interviews were conducted with staff trained specifically for the Beacon Site project, identified by opportunity and snowball sampling. The online survey was later offered to subsequent NHS staff who took part in the online REACH-HF training. Normalisation Process Theory was used as a theoretical framework to guide data collection/analysis.ResultsSeventeen healthcare professionals working at the Beacon Sites were interviewed and 17 survey responses were received (20% response rate). The identified barriers and enablers included, among many, a lack of resources/commissioning, having interest in heart failure and working closely with the clinical heart failure team. Different implementation contexts (urban/rural), timing (during the COVID-19 pandemic) and factors outside the healthcare team/system (quality of the REACH-HF training) were observed to negatively or positively impact the implementation process.ConclusionsThe findings are highly relevant to healthcare professionals involved in planning, delivering and commissioning of cardiac rehabilitation for patients with heart failure. The study's main output, a refined version of the REACH-HF Service Delivery Guide, can guide the implementation process (eg, designing new care pathways) and provide practical solutions to overcoming common implementation barriers (eg, through early identification of implementation champions).

Project description:To compare home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) with usual care (control group with no rehabilitation) in elderly patients who declined participation in centre-based CR.Randomised clinical trial with 12 months follow-up and mortality data after 5.5 years (mean follow-up 4½ years).Rehabilitation unit, Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen, Denmark.Elderly patients ?65 years with coronary heart disease.A physiotherapist made home visits in order to develop an individualised exercise programme that could be performed at home and surrounding outdoor area. Risk factor intervention, medical adjustment, physical and psychological assessments were offered at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months.The primary outcome was 6 min walk test (6MWT). Secondary outcomes were blood pressure, body composition, cholesterol profile, cessation of smoking, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), anxiety and depression.40 patients participated. The study population was characterised by high age (median age 77 years, range 65-92 years) and high level of comorbidity. Patients receiving home-based CR had a significant increase in the primary outcome 6MWT of 33.5 m (95% CI: 6.2 to 60.8, p=0.02) at 3 months, whereas the usual care group did not significantly improve, but with no significant differences between the groups. At 12 months follow-up, there was a decline in 6MWT in both groups; -55.2 m (95% CI: 18.7 to 91.7, p<0.01) in the home group and -52.1 m (95% CI: -3.0 to 107.1, p=0.06) in the usual care group. There were no significant differences in blood pressure, body composition, cholesterol profile, cessation of smoking or HRQoL after 3, 6 and 12 months follow-up.Participation in home-based CR improved exercise capacity among elderly patients with coronary heart disease, but there was no significant difference between the home intervention and the control group. In addition, no significant difference was found in the secondary outcomes. When intervention ceased, the initial increase in exercise capacity was rapidly lost.

Dataset Information

Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation Alone and Hybrid With Center-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation Alone and Hybrid With Center-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure