What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Systematic Review. Population: Cardiovascular diseases. Intervention: Cardiac telerehabilitation vs. Center-based rehabilitation. Primary outcome: Main outcome measures.

What does this research mean for the field?

Cardiac telerehabilitation significantly improves clinical outcomes and offers better cost-effectiveness, geographical accessibility, and treatment access for women compared to traditional center-based rehabilitation. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.SYNTHESIS. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

August 2, 2024Healthcare9 citationsOpen Access

Technological Developments, Exercise Training Programs, and Clinical Outcomes in Cardiac Telerehabilitation in the Last Ten Years: A Systematic Review

MGMarina GarofanoUniversity of Salerno CVCarmine VecchioneGeneral Cardiology MCMariaconsiglia CalabreseUniversity of Salerno

Key Result

Cardiac telerehabilitation significantly improved main outcome measures across 16 randomized controlled trials, offering better cost-effectiveness than center-based rehabilitation.

Study Design

Type

Systematic Review

Structured PICO

Does cardiac telerehabilitation improve clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular diseases compared to center-based rehabilitation?

Population

Patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) across 16 RCTs

Intervention

Cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) programs

Comparator

Center-based rehabilitation

Outcome

Main outcome measures and technological advances

Cardiac telerehabilitation offers significant improvements in clinical outcomes and provides advantages over center-based rehabilitation, including better cost-effectiveness and accessibility.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are associated with very high rates of re-hospitalization and mortality worldwide, so the complexity of these pathologies requires frequent access to hospital facilities. The guidelines also emphasize the importance of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs, which have demonstrated a favorable effect on outcomes, and cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) could represent an innovative healthcare delivery model. The aim of our review is to study how technologies used in rehabilitation have changed over time and also to understand what types of rehabilitation programs have been used in telerehabilitation. METHODS: We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in three electronic databases, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, from January 2015 to January 2024, using relevant keywords. Initially, 502 articles were found, and 79 duplicates were identified and eliminated with EndNote. RESULTS: In total, 16 RCTs fulfilled the pre-defined criteria, which were analyzed in our systematic review. The results showed that after CTR, there was a significant improvement in main outcome measures, as well as in relation to technological advances. CONCLUSIONS: Moreover, compared to center-based rehabilitation, CTR can offer further advantages, with better cost-effectiveness, the breakdown of geographical barriers, and the improvement of access to treatment for the female population, which is traditionally more socially committed.

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper