Key result
Cardiovascular telerehabilitation is a safe, cost-effective, and efficient alternative to center-based programs for improving functional capacity and quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease.
Why the study?
Despite the benefits of cardiovascular rehabilitation in secondary prevention, patient participation and completion rates remain low, and secondary prevention targets are frequently unmet.
Does cardiovascular telerehabilitation improve functional capacity and quality of life compared to traditional center-based rehabilitation in patients with coronary artery disease?
Does cardiovascular telerehabilitation improve functional capacity and quality of life compared to traditional center-based rehabilitation in patients with coronary artery disease?
Cardiovascular telerehabilitation is a safe, cost-effective, and effective alternative to traditional center-based rehabilitation, offering a solution to overcome barriers to participation, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
May support telerehabilitation adoption in CAD to improve access; leaves open confirmation by randomized trials.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ladislav Baťalík (2021) conducted a review in Coronary artery disease. Cardiovascular telerehabilitation vs. Center-based cardiovascular rehabilitation was evaluated. Cardiovascular telerehabilitation is a safe, cost-effective, and efficient alternative to center-based programs for improving functional capacity and quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: