Dataset Information

Cardiovascular Outcomes of Patients Referred to Home Based Cardiac Rehabilitation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Home 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.

Objectives

To compare outcomes of patients who were referred and attended HBCR vs patients referred but did not attend HBCR (Non-HBCR).

Methods

We 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.

Results

A 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).

Conclusion

Completion 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.

SUBMITTER: Jafri SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8600943 | 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:BackgroundPneumoconiosis patients receive community-based or home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for symptom management and enhancement of physical and mental well-being. This study aimed to review the clinical benefits of community-based rehabilitation programmes (CBRP) and home-based rehabilitation programmes (HBRP) for PR of pneumoconiosis patients.MethodsArchival data of pneumoconiosis patients who participated in CBRP and HBRP between 2008 and 2011 was analysed. There were 155 and 26 patients in the CBRP and HBRP respectively. The outcome measures used in the pre- and post-tests were Knowledge, Health Survey Short Form-12 (SF-12), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), 6-Min Walk Test (6MWT), and Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ). Paired t-tests and the Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) using the patients' baseline lung functions as the covariates were performed to examine the changes in the outcomes after completing the programmes. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to examine the relationships between patient's programme participation factors and different scores of the outcome measures.ResultsAfter controlling for patients' baseline lung capacities, significant improvements were revealed among patients participated in CBRP in the scores of the 6MWT, Knowledge, HADS, SF-12 PCS, and CRQ emotion and mastery. The different scores in the Knowledge and HADS were correlated with the patients' levels of programme participation. In contrast, significant improvements were only found in the scores of the Knowledge and 6MWT among patients who participated in HBRP. The gain scores of the 6MWT were correlated with the patients' levels of programme participation.ConclusionsBoth CBRP and HBRP benefited patients' levels of exercise tolerance and knowledge about the disease. CBRP provided greater benefits to patients' mental and psychosocial needs. In contrast, HBRP was found to improve patients' physical function, but did not have significant impacts on patients' mental health and health-related quality of life. The attendance of patients and the participation of their relatives in treatment sessions were important factors in enhancing the positive effects of CBRP and HBRP. These positive outcomes confirm the value of pulmonary rehabilitation programmes for community-dwelling pneumoconiosis patients.

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: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.

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.