Key result
Mobile technology provides a framework to reengineer cardiac rehabilitation, an intervention that reduces mortality by 12% to 34% but is utilized by only 14% to 31% of eligible patients.
Why the study?
Can mobile technology enhance the delivery and utilization of cardiac rehabilitation in patients with ischemic heart disease?
Can mobile technology enhance the delivery and utilization of cardiac rehabilitation in patients with ischemic heart disease?
This review proposes a framework for developing and evaluating mobile technology to address the dramatic underutilization of cardiac rehabilitation.
May support mobile platforms to boost cardiac rehabilitation uptake; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized trials before adoption.
I schemic heart disease (IHD) is the leading cause of death inthe United States.1 Cardiac rehabilitation is an evidence-based, cost-effective, multidisciplinary program of individual patient risk factor assessment and management, exercise training, and psychosocial support for patients with heart disease that reduces mortality by 12 % to 34 % (Table 1).2–6 Cardiac rehabilitation is recommended by American Heart Association (AHA) and theAmericanCollege of Cardiology (ACC) Guidelines for patients after myocardial infarction (MI), percu-taneous coronary intervention (PCI), or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG).7 However, cardiac rehabilitation is dramatically underutilized, with only 14 % to 31 % of eligible patients participating.8 Barriers to participation include low referral rates, patient difficulty attending center-based rehabilitation sessions, and cost.9 Recently, an AHA Presidential Advisory called for a reengineering of cardiac rehabilitation to enhance
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beatty et al. (2013) conducted a review in Ischemic heart disease. Mobile technology for cardiac rehabilitation was evaluated. Mobile technology provides a framework to reengineer cardiac rehabilitation, an intervention that reduces mortality by 12% to 34% but is utilized by only 14% to 31% of eligible patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: