Virtual reality technology improved the 6-minute walk test distance compared to conventional cardiac rehabilitation (MD 34.9; 95% CI 24.43-45.37; p<0.00001).
Meta-Analysis
Does virtual reality technology improve cardiopulmonary function and quality of life in cardiac rehabilitation patients?
Virtual reality technology incorporated into cardiac rehabilitation significantly improves functional capacity and quality of life compared to conventional programs.
Mean Difference: 34.9 (95% CI 24.43–45.37)
p-value: p=<0.00001
Purpose: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) technology in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) patients, focusing on cardiopulmonary function, quality of life, adherence, and satisfaction. Methods: Conducted following PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42025643632), this study systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Scopus, CNKI, and Wanfang Data. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 to assess the impact of VR interventions on cardiopulmonary function, quality of life (QOL), adherence, and satisfaction compared to conventional CR programs. Results: Twenty studies were included. Meta-analysis revealed that VR improved the 6 min walk test distance (MD: 34.9, 95% CI: 24.43, 45.37; p < 0.00001, I2 = 67%) and QOL (SMD: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.09, 1.17; p = 0.002, I2 = 86%). However, evidence regarding adherence and satisfaction was inconclusive. Conclusions: VR technology outperforms traditional CR in enhancing cardiopulmonary function and quality of life. While it might improve patient adherence, further research is necessary to confirm these findings.
Cheng et al. (Wed,) conducted a meta-analysis in Cardiac rehabilitation. Virtual reality (VR) technology vs. Conventional cardiac rehabilitation programs was evaluated on 6 min walk test distance (MD 34.9, 95% CI 24.43-45.37, p=<0.00001). Virtual reality technology improved the 6-minute walk test distance compared to conventional cardiac rehabilitation (MD 34.9; 95% CI 24.43-45.37; p<0.00001).