Key result
12-week home-based cardiac rehabilitation linked to fewer major events vs community care.
Why the study?
Cardiac rehabilitation improves outcomes in cardiovascular disease but participation is low, and studies evaluating the efficacy of home-based cardiac rehabilitation are limited.
Does a 12-week home-based cardiac rehabilitation program reduce composite cardiovascular events and improve physical function in patients with cardiovascular disease compared to community care or usual care?
Cohort (n=272)
Does a 12-week home-based cardiac rehabilitation program reduce composite cardiovascular events and improve physical function in patients with cardiovascular disease compared to community care or usual care?
p-value: p=0.002
A 12-week home-based cardiac rehabilitation program significantly improved physical function, reduced composite cardiovascular events, and lowered healthcare costs compared to community care.
May support home-based cardiac rehab to lower events and costs; hypothesis-generating, needs randomized confirmation before practice change.
PURPOSE: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves health outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but referral, participation, and completion rates are low. Home-based CR (HBCR) is a proposed solution, but studies on its efficacy are limited. We report our experience from a Veterans Affairs HBCR program on physical function, costs, and outcomes overlapping with the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A 12-week HBCR program included case-managed individualized exercise and risk management. Six functional tests were conducted remotely, safety was monitored, and quality of life and costs were quantified. A composite outcome (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiac-related hospitalization) was compared between 70 HBCR participants, 131 patients referred to Community Care, and 71 patients undergoing usual care (no CR) over a mean follow-up of 2.5 ± 0.90 years. RESULTS: Among HBCR participants, there were significant improvements in right and left leg balance (145 and 56%, respectively, P < .001), 30-second chair stand (47%, P < .001), 2-minute step performance (41%, P < .001), right and left 30-second arm curl (31 and 30%, respectively, P < .001), 50-foot walk test (20%, P = .002), 8-foot up and go test (28%, P < .001), and steps/day (82%, P < .001). Composite events were lower among patients in the HBCR group versus those referred to Community Care ( P = .002). Health care costs were significantly lower among patients in the HBCR group compared to those in Community Care ($2101 vs $3289/subject, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A HBCR program that included a broad spectrum of patients with CVD and multiple co-morbidities, performed largely during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulted in significant functional and outcome benefits and reduced costs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Myers et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Cardiovascular disease (n=272). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) vs. Community Care or usual care (no CR) was evaluated on Composite outcome (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiac-related hospitalization) (p=0.002). A 12-week home-based cardiac rehabilitation program significantly reduced the composite of death, MI, stroke, and cardiac hospitalization compared to Community Care (P=0.002).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: