Key result
Virtual or remote cardiac rehabilitation programs generally improved clinical outcomes compared to usual care, though high heterogeneity was observed across the 51 included systematic reviews.
Why the study?
Technology in virtual or remote cardiac rehabilitation can resolve healthcare access challenges, prompting this evaluation of its effect on clinical outcomes in CVD patients.
Does virtual or remote cardiac rehabilitation improve clinical outcomes in cardiovascular patients compared to usual care?
Systematic Review
Does virtual or remote cardiac rehabilitation improve clinical outcomes in cardiovascular patients compared to usual care?
Virtual or remote cardiac rehabilitation programs generally have a positive effect on clinical outcomes compared to usual care, though heterogeneity exists based on technology complexity and patient acceptability.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports virtual cardiac rehabilitation implementation; confirms benefits across reviews while highlighting heterogeneity for targeted trials.
Background: Application of technology in virtual or remote cardiac rehabilitation programs can resolve the challenge of accessing healthcare services and reduce access level inequalities. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of technology on different clinical outcomes in cardiac rehabilitation programs used for cardiovascular (CVD) patients. Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and a comprehensive evidence map of overview was used. Two researchers searched electronic databases such as Science Direct, Medline / PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, Google Scholar and Cochrane library at the time of publication until Mar 21, 2021. Results: Of 51 reviews published, most of them have reported that the virtual or remote cardiac rehabilitation had a positive effect on most outcomes compared to usual care, and the difference in the type of comparison group and the high heterogeneity in reviews with inconsistent results are due to different technologies used in the interventions, follow-up duration, the type of heart disease, tools, and reporting methods, the quality of the reviews, and the quality of the primary studies included in the reviews. Conclusion: Two important factors before choosing the remote cardiac rehabilitation technology include the complexity of technology and the level of satisfaction and acceptability of the interventions among participants. The simplicity of the interventions increases the acceptability level, and the more complex design and advanced monitoring level during the interventions and the need for specific equipment affect cost saving, so it is important to consider the above cases while choosing the type of technology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arian et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review in Cardiovascular diseases. Virtual or remote cardiac rehabilitation programs (e-health, m-health, tele-health, telemedicine) vs. Usual care and non-virtual cardiac rehabilitation programs was evaluated. Virtual or remote cardiac rehabilitation programs generally improved clinical outcomes compared to usual care, though high heterogeneity was observed across the 51 included systematic reviews.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: