Why the study?
Does home-based training with telemonitoring guidance improve physical fitness and cost-effectiveness compared to conventional centre-based training in low-to-moderate cardiac risk patients?
Does home-based training with telemonitoring guidance improve physical fitness and cost-effectiveness compared to conventional centre-based training in low-to-moderate cardiac risk patients?
Home-based cardiac rehabilitation with telemonitoring is a viable, potentially more cost-effective alternative to centre-based training that yields similar physical fitness improvements and higher patient satisfaction.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Home-based training with telemonitoring yields equivalent fitness gains plus higher satisfaction and potential cost savings; extends evidence supporting its use as an alternative in low-to-moderate risk patients.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kraal et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: