Key result
Center-based cardiac rehab links to greater VO2/kg, METs, and EF improvements versus home-based rehab.
Why the study?
Although the clinical efficacy of cardiac rehabilitation has been established, there is uncertainty whether center-based programs are more effective than home-based programs in acute and subacute phases.
Does center-based cardiac rehabilitation improve cardiopulmonary function more than home-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients recently diagnosed with cardiovascular diseases?
Observational (n=37)
None
None
No
Does center-based cardiac rehabilitation improve cardiopulmonary function more than home-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients recently diagnosed with cardiovascular diseases?
Center-based cardiac rehabilitation provides greater improvements in cardiac output and exercise capacity (VO2/kg, METs, EF) than home-based programs during the acute and subacute phases.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Center-based cardiac rehabilitation was associated with greater gains in VO2/kg, METs, and EF; hypothesis-generating and requires RCT confirmation before practice change.
Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) can improve clinical indicators in patients with cardiovascular diseases. The literature reports a 20% reduction in all-cause mortality and a 27% reduction in heart-disease mortality following CR. Although its clinical efficacy has been established, there is uncertainty whether center-based (CBCR) is more effective than home-based (HBCR) programs in acute and subacute phases. We aimed to verify significant differences in their effectiveness for the improvement of cardiopulmonary function by analyzing cardiopulmonary exercise (CPX) with laboratory tests following both CR programs.A single-center cohort study of 37 patients, recently diagnosed with underlying cardiovascular diseases, underwent CBCR(18) and HBCR(19). CBCR group performed a supervised exercise regimen at the CR center, for 1 hour, 2 to 3 days a week, for a total of 12 to18 weeks. HBCR group completed a self-monitored exercise program at home under the same guidelines as CBCR. Participants were evaluated by CPX with laboratory tests at 1- and 6-month, following the respective programs.There was no statistical significance in clinical characteristics and laboratory findings. Pre-post treatment comparison showed significant improvement in VO2/kg, minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope, breathing reserve, tidal volume (VT), heart rate recovery, oxygen consumption per heart rate, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), LDL/HDL ratio, total cholesterol, ejection fraction (EF) (P < .05). CBCR approach showed greater improvement with significance in VO2/kg, metabolic equivalents, and EF on between groups analysis (P < .05).The time effect of CPX test and laboratory data showed improvement in cardiopulmonary function and serum indicators for both groups. VO2/kg, metabolic equivalents, and EF were among the variables that showed significant differences between groups. In the acute and subacute phases of 1 to 6 months, the CBCR group showed a greater cardiac output improvement than the HBCR group.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Ischemic heart disease (n=37). Center-based cardiac rehabilitation vs. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation was evaluated on Difference in oxygen consumption per kilogram (VO2/kg) improvement between groups (p=0.047). Center-based cardiac rehabilitation showed significantly greater improvements in oxygen consumption per kilogram, metabolic equivalents, and ejection fraction compared to home-based rehabilitation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: