Key result
A 3-month home-based exercise program with telemonitoring did not result in higher exercise capacity compared to center-based or control interventions at 1 year (P interaction >0.05).
Why the study?
Data on the long-term effectiveness of home-based exercise training with telemonitoring on physical activity and exercise capacity following supervised phase II cardiac rehabilitation are scarce.
Does a 3-month home-based phase III exercise programme with telemonitoring guidance improve exercise capacity at one year in patients with coronary artery disease after phase II cardiac rehabilitation?
RCT (n=90)
1:1:1
Does a 3-month home-based phase III exercise programme with telemonitoring guidance improve exercise capacity at one year in patients with coronary artery disease after phase II cardiac rehabilitation?
A 3-month home-based exercise program with telemonitoring guidance was as effective as a center-based program or control in maintaining exercise capacity at one year following phase II cardiac rehabilitation in patients with coronary artery disease.
Home-based telemonitored exercise maintains capacity equivalently to center-based or control at 1 year; confirms flexible delivery modes suffice post-phase II rehab in CAD.
Background Home-based interventions might facilitate the lifelong uptake of a physically active lifestyle following completion of a supervised phase II exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. Yet, data on the long-term effectiveness of home-based exercise training on physical activity and exercise capacity are scarce. Objective The purpose of the TeleRehabilitation in Coronary Heart disease (TRiCH) study was to compare the long-term effects of a short home-based phase III exercise programme with telemonitoring guidance to a prolonged centre-based phase III programme in coronary artery disease patients. The primary outcome was exercise capacity. Secondary outcomes included physical activity behaviour, cardiovascular risk profile and health-related quality of life. Methods Ninety coronary artery disease patients (80 men) were randomly assigned to 3 months of home-based (30), centre-based (30) or a control group (30) on a 1:1:1 basis after completion of their phase II ambulatory cardiac rehabilitation programme. Outcome measures were assessed at discharge of the phase II programme and after one year. Results Eighty patients (72 (91%) men; mean age 62.6 years) completed the one-year follow-up measurements. Exercise capacity and secondary outcomes were preserved in all three groups ( P time > 0.05 for all), irrespective of the intervention ( P interaction > 0.05 for all). Eighty-five per cent of patients met the international guidelines for physical activity ( P time < 0.05). No interaction effect was found for physical activity. Conclusion Overall, exercise capacity remained stable during one year following phase II cardiac rehabilitation. Our home-based exercise intervention was as effective as centre-based and did not result in higher levels of exercise capacity and physical activity compared to the other two interventions. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02047942. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02047942
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ávila et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in coronary artery disease (n=90). Home-based phase III exercise programme with telemonitoring guidance vs. Centre-based phase III programme or control group was evaluated on Exercise capacity (p=>0.05). A 3-month home-based exercise program with telemonitoring did not result in higher exercise capacity compared to center-based or control interventions at 1 year (P interaction >0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: