Digital technologies in cardiac rehabilitation achieved improvements in functional capacity, physical activity, and risk-factor profiles comparable to traditional centre-based rehabilitation.
Do digital technologies in cardiac rehabilitation improve functional, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes in high-risk cardiovascular patients compared to traditional centre-based care?
Digital technologies such as mHealth, VR, and virtual education offer safe and effective complements to traditional cardiac rehabilitation, yielding comparable functional and quality-of-life benefits.
Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a key component of secondary prevention after acute coronary events, coronary and valve interventions, and device implantation, yet participation and long-term adherence remain suboptimal. Digital technologies offer the potential to extend CR beyond the centre-based model and to support more flexible, patient-centred care. Methods: This narrative “review on a systematic backbone” synthesizes original clinical studies published between 2005 and 2025 that evaluated the use of digital technologies as an integral part of CR in adults after myocardial infarction, revascularization, valve procedures or implantation of cardiac devices. Interventions were grouped into four categories: mobile health (mHealth) and tele-rehabilitation, virtual reality (VR) and exergaming, virtual education platforms, and other multi-component digital CR solutions. Only original studies with clinical, functional, or patient-reported outcomes were included. Results: Twenty-one studies on the categories mentioned above met the eligibility criteria. mHealth-enabled home-based or hybrid CR programs consistently achieved improvements in functional capacity and physical activity that were broadly comparable to centre-based CR, with generally high adherence. VR and exergaming interventions were feasible and safe, produced at least similar functional gains, and showed more consistent benefits as far as anxiety levels and engagement levels. Virtual education platforms delivered knowledge and produced behaviour change similar to traditional education and, in some studies, supported better control of blood pressure and lipids. Comprehensive digital CR platforms improved risk-factor profiles and quality of life to a degree comparable with face-to-face CR. Conclusions: Digital technologies can credibly support core objectives of CR in high-risk patients and expand access, but must be implemented as a complement to, rather than a replacement for, multidisciplinary, patient-centred rehabilitation.
Rechcińska et al. (2026) conducted a review in High-risk cardiovascular patients requiring cardiac rehabilitation. Digital technologies (mHealth, virtual reality, exergaming, virtual education) vs. Centre-based cardiac rehabilitation or traditional education was evaluated on Clinical, functional, or patient-reported outcomes. Digital technologies in cardiac rehabilitation achieved improvements in functional capacity, physical activity, and risk-factor profiles comparable to traditional centre-based rehabilitation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: