Smartphone-based secondary prevention programs significantly increased 6-minute walk test distance by 20.10 meters (95% CI 7.44-33.97; P<.001) compared to traditional cardiac rehabilitation.
Meta-Analysis (n=1,120)
Yes
Do smartphone-based secondary prevention programs improve exercise capacity and cardiovascular risk factors compared to traditional cardiac rehabilitation in patients with coronary artery disease?
Smartphone-based cardiac rehabilitation programs effectively improve exercise capacity in patients with coronary artery disease, offering a viable alternative to traditional hospital-based services.
Effect estimate: Difference 20.10 meters (95% CI 7.44-33.97)
p-value: p=<.001
Background: Cardiac rehabilitation programs provide a comprehensive framework for the institution of secondary preventive measures. Smartphone technology can provide a platform for the delivery of such programs and is a promising alternative to hospital-based services. However, there is limited evidence to date supporting this approach. Accordingly, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis examining smartphone-based secondary prevention programs to traditional cardiac rehabilitation in patients with established coronary artery disease to ascertain the feasibility and effectiveness of these interventions. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model with the outcomes of interest being 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance, systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and body mass index (BMI). Results: A total of 8 studies with 1120 patients across 5 countries were included in the quantitative analysis. Follow-up ranged from 6 weeks to 12 months. Five studies examined all patients post acute coronary syndrome, 2 studies examined only patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and 1 study examined all patients with a diagnosis of coronary artery disease, independent of intervention. Exercise capacity, as measured by the 6MWT, was significantly greater in the smartphone group (20.10 meters, 95% confidence interval CI 7.44-33.97; P .05). Conclusion: Publicly available smartphone-based cardiac rehabilitation programs are a convenient and easily disseminated intervention which show merit in exercise promotion in patients with established coronary artery disease. Further research is required to establish the clinical significance of recent findings favoring their use.
Murphy et al. (Wed,) conducted a meta-analysis in Coronary artery disease (n=1,120). Smartphone-based secondary prevention programs vs. Traditional cardiac rehabilitation was evaluated on 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance (Difference 20.10 meters, 95% CI 7.44-33.97, p=<.001). Smartphone-based secondary prevention programs significantly increased 6-minute walk test distance by 20.10 meters (95% CI 7.44-33.97; P<.001) compared to traditional cardiac rehabilitation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: