A remotely delivered 8-week cardiac rehabilitation exercise program did not significantly improve 6-minute walk test distance compared to a traditional center-based program (interaction P=.87).
Does a remotely delivered cardiac rehabilitation exercise program improve exercise capacity in patients with coronary heart disease compared to a traditional center-based program?
A remotely delivered cardiac rehabilitation exercise program was feasible and safe, though it did not show a statistically significant improvement in 6-minute walk test distance compared to a traditional center-based program in this small pilot study.
Absolute Event Rate: 504.5% vs 522%
p-value: p=.87
Background Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recommended for coronary heart disease (CHD). However, poor uptake of and poor adherence to CR exercise programs have been reported globally. Delivering CR exercise classes remotely may remove some of the barriers associated with traditional hospital- or center-based CR. Objective We have developed a bespoke platform, Eastern Corridor Medical Engineering Centre–Cardiac Rehabilitation (ECME-CR), to support remotely delivered CR exercise. This pilot trial sought to test the ECME-CR platform and examine the efficacy and feasibility of a remote CR exercise program compared to a traditional center-based program. Methods In all, 21 participants with CHD were recruited and assigned to either the intervention or control group. Both groups performed the same 8-week exercise program. Participants in the intervention group took part in web-based exercise classes and used the ECME-CR platform during the intervention period, whereas participants in the control group attended in-person classes. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and following the 8-week intervention period. The primary outcome measure was exercise capacity, assessed using a 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Secondary outcomes included measurement of grip strength, self-reported quality of life, heart rate, blood pressure, and body composition. A series of mixed between-within subjects ANOVA were conducted to examine the mean differences in study outcomes between and within groups. Participant adherence to the exercise program was also analyzed. Results In all, 8 participants (male: n=5; age: mean 69.7, SD 7.2 years; height: mean 163.9, SD 5.4 cm; weight: mean 81.6, SD 14.1 kg) in the intervention group and 9 participants (male: n=9; age: mean 69.8, SD 8.2 years; height: mean 173.8, SD 5.2 cm; weight: mean 94.4, SD 18.0 kg) in the control group completed the exercise program. Although improvements in 6MWT distance were observed from baseline to follow-up in both the intervention (mean 490.1, SD 80.2 m to mean 504.5, SD 93.7 m) and control (mean 510.2, SD 48.3 m to mean 520.6, SD 49.4 m) group, no significant interaction effect (F1,14=.026; P=.87) nor effect for time (F1,14=2.51; P=.14) were observed. No significant effects emerged for any of the other secondary end points (all P>.0275). Adherence to the exercise program was high in both the intervention (14.25/16, 89.1%) and control (14.33/16, 89.6%) group. No adverse events or safety issues were reported in either group during the study. Conclusions This pilot trial did not show evidence of significant positive effect for either the remotely delivered or center-based program. The 6MWT may not have been sufficiently sensitive to identify a change in this cohort of participants with stable CHD. This trial does provide evidence that remote CR exercise, supported with digital self-monitoring, is feasible and may be considered for individuals less likely to participate in traditional center-based programs. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/31855
Giggins et al. (Fri,) conducted a other in Coronary Heart Disease (n=21). Remotely delivered cardiac rehabilitation exercise program (ECME-CR platform) vs. Traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation exercise program was evaluated on Exercise capacity assessed using a 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance in meters (p=.87). A remotely delivered 8-week cardiac rehabilitation exercise program did not significantly improve 6-minute walk test distance compared to a traditional center-based program (interaction P=.87).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: