Key result
Home-based cardiac rehabilitation was as effective as centre-based rehabilitation for improving exercise capacity, with an adjusted mean difference in peak VO2 of 0.9 ml/kg/min (95% CI -0.7, 2.4).
Why the study?
Does home-based cardiac rehabilitation improve exercise capacity in elderly patients with coronary heart disease compared to centre-based cardiac rehabilitation?
RCT (n=75)
Does home-based cardiac rehabilitation improve exercise capacity in elderly patients with coronary heart disease compared to centre-based cardiac rehabilitation?
Home-based cardiac rehabilitation is as effective as centre-based rehabilitation for improving exercise capacity and risk factors in elderly patients with coronary heart disease.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports broader access to cardiac rehabilitation for elderly CHD patients; extends RCT evidence for home-based programs.
BACKGROUND: participation in centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is known to reduce morbidity and mortality but participation rates among the elderly are low. Establishing alternative programmes is important, and home-based CR is the predominant alternative. However, no studies have investigated the effect of home-based CR among a group of elderly patients with coronary heart disease with a long-term follow-up. METHODS: randomised clinical trial comparing home-based CR with comprehensive centre-based CR among patients ≥ 65 years with coronary heart disease. RESULTS: seventy-five patients participated. There were no significant differences in exercise capacity after the intervention between home and centre-based CR. Adjusted mean differences of peak VO₂ = 0.9 ml/kg/min (95% CI -0.7, 2.4) and of 6 min walk test = -18.7 m (95% CI -56.4, 18.9). In addition, no differences were found in the secondary outcomes of systolic blood pressure (-0.6 mmHg, 95% CI -11.3, 10.0), LDL cholesterol (0.3 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.04, 0.7), HDL cholesterol (0.2 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.01, 0.3), body composition, proportion of smokers and health-related quality of life. A group of patients who did not have an effect of either programmes were characterised by higher age, living alone and having COPD. At 12 months of follow-up, both groups had a significant decline in exercise capacity. CONCLUSIONS: home-based CR is as effective as centre-based CR in improving exercise capacity, risk factor control and health-related quality of life. However, a group of patients did not improve regardless of the type of intervention. Continued follow-up is essential in order to maintain the gained improvements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oerkild et al. (2010) conducted an RCT in Coronary heart disease (n=75). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation vs. Comprehensive centre-based cardiac rehabilitation was evaluated on Exercise capacity (peak VO2) (Adjusted mean difference 0.9 ml/kg/min, 95% CI -0.7, 2.4). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation was as effective as centre-based rehabilitation for improving exercise capacity, with an adjusted mean difference in peak VO2 of 0.9 ml/kg/min (95% CI -0.7, 2.4).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: