Key result
Hybrid cardiac rehabilitation matches traditional programs in sustaining clinical and functional improvements at six months.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a hybrid cardiac rehabilitation program compared with a traditional program, including its long-term impact on physical activity, functional capacity, health-related quality of life, and anxiety and depression symptoms.
Does a hybrid cardiac rehabilitation program improve physical activity, functional capacity, HRQoL, and psychological symptoms compared to traditional cardiac rehabilitation in patients eligible for CR?
Does a hybrid cardiac rehabilitation program improve physical activity, functional capacity, HRQoL, and psychological symptoms compared to traditional cardiac rehabilitation in patients eligible for CR?
A hybrid cardiac rehabilitation program transitioning to home-based sessions is as effective as traditional in-center rehabilitation for improving functional capacity and psychological outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports hybrid CR to expand participation; extends low-certainty consensus to home-based models in eligible patients.
Purpose: Evaluate the effectiveness of a hybrid cardiac rehabilitation (CR) program compared with a traditional CR program and to assess the long-term effectiveness of the hybrid program in terms of promoting improvements in physical activity, functional capacity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and symptoms of anxiety and depression. Methods: A pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted across nine centers. The traditional program involved in-center exercise sessions twice a week for 12 weeks. The hybrid program included in-center sessions twice a week for 6 weeks, followed by a gradual replacement of in-center sessions by home-based sessions over the next 6 weeks. Physical activity levels, functional capacity, HRQoL, and symptoms of anxiety and depression were assessed at baseline, at the end of the program, and at a 6-month follow-up. A generalized linear mixed model was used to assess between-group differences. Results: Of the 295 participants recruited, 224 completed the end-of-program assessment (76%), and 169 were followed up at 6 months (57%). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for all variables except for HRQoL. Between baseline and discharge, both groups showed significant improvements in all variables. At 6 months, no significant changes or differences between groups were found, indicating that the benefits were maintained over time. Conclusions: No statistically significant differences were observed between groups for most outcomes. Both hybrid and traditional CR programs led to significant improvements in all outcomes. These benefits were sustained 6 months after completing either type of program.
Tanguay et al. (2026) studied this question. Hybrid cardiac rehabilitation was as effective as traditional programs, with both leading to significant improvements across clinical and functional outcomes that were sustained at 6 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: