Key result
In-person exercise training improves HR-QoL over no exercise, while home-based programs show no benefit.
Why the study?
Patients with coronary artery disease experience poorer mental health, health-related quality of life, and cognition, but the effects of different exercise types and settings on these outcomes remain to be established.
Does exercise training of different types and settings improve health-related quality of life and mental health in patients with coronary artery disease?
Population
Patients with coronary artery disease across 36 RCTs in the meta-analysis
Comparison
Exercise types and settings vs no exercise (usual care)
Design
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of parallel-group RCTs
Authors
Loading...
Favors supervised in-person exercise to improve quality of life in CAD; confirms home-based programs lack comparable efficacy.
Meta-Analysis
Does exercise training of different types and settings improve health-related quality of life and mental health in patients with coronary artery disease?
Effect estimate: SMD 0.51 (95% CI 0.28-0.74)
In-person exercise training significantly improves health-related quality of life, depression, and anxiety in patients with coronary artery disease, whereas home-based programs may lack effectiveness for these outcomes.
Toval et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in coronary artery disease. Exercise training vs. No exercise (usual care) was evaluated on Health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) with in-person exercise (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.74). In-person exercise training significantly improved health-related quality of life (SMD 0.51; 95% CI 0.28-0.74) compared with no exercise, whereas home-based programs showed no significant improvement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: