Key result
Home-based cardiac rehabilitation improves quality of life by ~6 points vs usual care in HF.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to investigate the effect of home-based cardiac rehabilitation on quality of life, functional capacity, and readmission rates in patients with heart failure.
Does home-based cardiac rehabilitation improve quality of life, functional capacity, and readmission rates in patients with heart failure?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,465)
Does home-based cardiac rehabilitation improve quality of life, functional capacity, and readmission rates in patients with heart failure?
Home-based cardiac rehabilitation improves quality of life and exercise capacity compared to usual care in heart failure patients, and provides similar outcomes to center-based cardiac rehabilitation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports home-based cardiac rehabilitation to improve quality of life in heart failure; confirms benefits over usual care in pooled randomized data.
SUMMARY: This study is to investigate the effect of home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) on quality of life, functional capacity, and readmission rates in patients with heart failure. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were screened from Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. The intervention group received a standardized HBCR or a comprehensive rehabilitation strategy that included HBCR. The participants in the control group received CR at a medical center or usual care without CR intervention. The main outcome measurements included quality of life, exercise capacity, mortality and re-hospitalization. This meta-analysis included 20 RCTs, in which 16 studies compared HBCR with usual care, and 4 studies compared HBCR with center-based CR. In comparison with the usual care, HBCR improved the total quality of life score [MD=-5.85, 95 % CI (-9.76, - 1.94), P=0.003, I2=75 %]. Patients with HBCR and usual care were significantly different in VO2max [MD=1.05 mL/kg/min, 95 % CI (0.35, 1.75), P=0.003, I2=46 %]. However, VO2max of patients with HBCR was not significantly different from those with center-based CR [MD=0.08 mL/kg/min, 95 % CI (-1.29, 1.44), P=0.91, I2=0 %]. There was statistically significant difference in the 6-min Walk Distance between usual care and HBCR (for distance [MD=11.84, 95 % CI (7.41, 16.28), P<0.00001, I2=0 %]; and for feet [MD=98.93, 95 % CI (26.79, 171.08), P=0.007, I2=56 %]). However, there was no significant difference in 6-min Walk Distance between patients with HBCR and center-based CR [MD=12.45, 95 % CI (-9.81, 34.72), P=0.27, I2=0 %] , or in anxiety and depression between patients with usual care and HBCR (for anxiety, [MD=-0.25, 95 % CI (-0.56, 0.05), P=0.11, I2=0 %]; for depression, [MD=-0.18, 95 % CI (-0.51, 0.16), P=0.30, I2=0 %] . No significant difference was found in death number [RR=1.04, 95 % CI (0.55, 1.98), P=0.90, I2=0 %] or in the number of re-hospitalization [RR=0.88, 95 % CI (0.66, 1.18), P=0.40, I2=0 %] between usual care and HBCR. For patients with heart failure, compare with usual care and center-based CR, HBCR can improve the total quality of life. Compare with usual care, HBCR can improve VO2max and 6-min Walk Distance, but compare with center- based CR, there are no differences in mortality, re-hospitalization rate or incidence of anxiety and depression. Additionally, center- based CR and HBCR showed similar outcomes and medical costs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ye et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure (n=1,465). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) vs. Usual care or center-based cardiac rehabilitation was evaluated on Total quality of life score (MD -5.85, 95% CI -9.76, -1.94, p=0.003). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation significantly improved the total quality of life score by a mean difference of -5.85 compared to usual care in patients with heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: