Key result
Cardiac telerehabilitation fails to improve BMI or quality of life unlike conventional rehabilitation.
Why the study?
The study aimed to evaluate the impact of a cardiac telerehabilitation protocol in patients with cardiovascular diseases during COVID-19-associated social isolation.
Does cardiac telerehabilitation improve body mass index and quality of life in patients with stable cardiovascular diseases during COVID-19 social isolation?
Cohort (n=58)
Does cardiac telerehabilitation improve body mass index and quality of life in patients with stable cardiovascular diseases during COVID-19 social isolation?
While conventional cardiac rehabilitation is superior for improving clinical status and quality of life, cardiac telerehabilitation is a relevant strategy to stabilize blood pressure and quality of life during periods of social isolation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May favor conventional over telerehabilitation for BMI and QoL gains; leaves open its stabilizing role during isolation.
This study aimed to compare the impact of a cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) protocol aimed at patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) during the period of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated with social isolation. This retrospective cohort study included 58 participants diagnosed with stable cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), which were divided into three groups: conventional cardiac rehabilitation (CCR) group ( n = 20), composed of patients undergoing conventional cardiac rehabilitation; cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) group ( n = 18), composed of patients undergoing cardiac telerehabilitation and control group ( n = 20), composed of patients admitted for cardiac rehabilitation who had not started training programs. The results showed that body mass index was reduced ( p = 0.019) and quality of life was improved (e.g., limitations due to physical aspects [ p = 0.021), vitality [ p = 0.045] and limitations due to emotional aspects [ p = 0.024]) by CCR compared to baseline. These outcomes were not improved by CTR ( p > 0.05). However, this strategy prevented clinical deterioration in the investigated patients. Although CCR achieved a superior effect on clinical improvement and quality of life, CTR was relevant to stabilize the blood pressure and quality of life of patients with cardiovascular diseases during the period of COVID-19-associated social isolation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prado et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in stable cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) (n=58). Cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) vs. Conventional cardiac rehabilitation (CCR) and no training control was evaluated on Body mass index and quality of life (p=>0.05). Cardiac telerehabilitation did not improve body mass index or quality of life (p>0.05) compared to baseline, whereas conventional rehabilitation improved BMI (p=0.019) and quality of life.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: