Key result
Hybrid cardiac rehabilitation proves noninferior to standard center-based rehabilitation for improving functional capacity.
Why the study?
Hybrid cardiac rehabilitation combining center-based sessions with telerehabilitation offers an alternative to overcome logistical barriers to conventional cardiac rehabilitation, but its noninferiority required evaluation.
Does hybrid cardiac rehabilitation improve functional capacity noninferiorly to center-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with chronic heart disease?
RCT (n=75)
randomized
Does hybrid cardiac rehabilitation improve functional capacity noninferiorly to center-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with chronic heart disease?
p-value: p=<0.001
Hybrid cardiac rehabilitation is noninferior to traditional center-based rehabilitation for improving functional capacity, providing a viable alternative to overcome logistical barriers to care.
Addresses logistical barriers to cardiac rehabilitation; extends randomized evidence for hybrid delivery models.
Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a cornerstone of heart disease (HD) management, enhancing functional capacity and quality of life. Hybrid cardiac rehabilitation (hCR), combining supervised center-based sessions with synchronous, real-time telerehabilitation at home, offers an alternative to conventional CR to overcome logistical barriers such as facility limitations, distance, and pandemic-related disruptions. This randomized controlled trial evaluated the noninferiority of hCR compared to standard CR in improving functional capacity in patients with chronic heart disease, including those with stable coronary artery disease. Seventy-five participants were randomized into two groups: the CR group, with exclusively center-based sessions, and the hCR group, with synchronous tele-rehabilitation sessions at home complemented by center-based sessions. Functional capacity was assessed using cardiopulmonary exercise testing, the six-minute walk test, and the wall squat test. Both groups showed significant improvements in functional outcomes, including walking distance (six-minute walk test), strength capacity (wall squat test), and cardiopulmonary exercise testing performance ( P < 0.001). The improvements in the hCR group were statistically noninferior to those in the CR group. These findings demonstrate that hCR provides an effective alternative to conventional CR while addressing practical challenges in access to care. The hCR protocol represents a viable solution for expanding rehabilitation options without compromising outcomes, particularly for patients facing logistical constraints or during emergencies such as pandemics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Racodon et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Chronic heart disease (n=75). Hybrid cardiac rehabilitation (hCR) vs. Standard center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) was evaluated on Functional capacity (assessed via cardiopulmonary exercise testing, six-minute walk test, and wall squat test) (p=<0.001). Hybrid cardiac rehabilitation was statistically noninferior to standard center-based rehabilitation in improving functional capacity in patients with chronic heart disease (P<0.001 for improvements).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: