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:AimsCardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an evidence-based, secondary preventive strategy that improves mortality and morbidity rates in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the implementation and continuation of CR remains unsatisfactory, particularly for outpatients with physical frailty. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of a comprehensive home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) programme that combines patient education, exercise guidance, and nutritional guidance using information and communication technology (ICT).Methods and resultsThis study was a single-centre, open-label, randomized, controlled trial. Between April 2020 and November 2020, 30 outpatients with chronic HF (New York Heart Association II-III) and physical frailty were enrolled. The control group (n = 15) continued with standard care, while the HBCR group (n = 15) also received comprehensive, individualized CR, including ICT-based exercise and nutrition guidance using ICT via a Fitbit® device for 3 months. The CR team communicated with each patient in HBCR group once a week via the application messaging tool and planned the training frequency and intensity of training individually for the next week according to each patient's symptoms and recorded pulse data during exercise. Dietitians conducted a nutritional assessment and then provided individual nutritional advice using the picture-posting function of the application. The primary outcome was the change in the 6 min walking distance (6MWD). The participants' mean age was 63.7 ± 10.1 years, 53% were male, and 87% had non-ischaemic heart disease. The observed change in the 6MWD was significantly greater in the HBCR group (52.1 ± 43.9 m vs. -4.3 ± 38.8 m; P < 0.001) at a 73% of adherence rate. There was no significant change in adverse events in either group.ConclusionsOur comprehensive HBCR programme using ICT for HF patients with physical frailty improved exercise tolerance and improved lower extremity muscle strength in our sample, suggesting management with individualized ICT-based programmes as a safe and effective approach. Considering the increasing number of HF patients with frailty worldwide, our approach provides an efficient method to keep patients engaged in physical activity in their daily life.

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:AimsCoronary heart disease is the most common reason for referral to exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) globally. However, the generalizability of previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is questioned. Therefore, a contemporary updated meta-analysis was undertaken.Methods and resultsDatabase and trial registry searches were conducted to September 2020, seeking RCTs of exercise-based interventions with ≥6-month follow-up, compared with no-exercise control for adults with myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, or following coronary artery bypass graft, or percutaneous coronary intervention. The outcomes of mortality, recurrent clinical events, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis, and cost-effectiveness data were narratively synthesized. Meta-regression was used to examine effect modification. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A total of 85 RCTs involving 23 430 participants with a median 12-month follow-up were included. Overall, exercise-based CR was associated with significant risk reductions in cardiovascular mortality [risk ratio (RR): 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64-0.86, number needed to treat (NNT): 37], hospitalizations (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.67-0.89, NNT: 37), and myocardial infarction (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.96, NNT: 100). There was some evidence of significantly improved HRQoL with CR participation, and CR is cost-effective. There was no significant impact on overall mortality (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.89-1.04), coronary artery bypass graft (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.80-1.15), or percutaneous coronary intervention (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.69-1.02). No significant difference in effects was found across different patient groups, CR delivery models, doses, follow-up, or risk of bias.ConclusionThis review confirms that participation in exercise-based CR by patients with coronary heart disease receiving contemporary medical management reduces cardiovascular mortality, recurrent cardiac events, and hospitalizations and provides additional evidence supporting the improvement in HRQoL and the cost-effectiveness of CR.

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

Tweets