Key result
Telerehabilitation improved exercise capacity, adherence, and quality of life compared with control conditions, with no significant between-group differences in cardiovascular risk factors.
Why the study?
Does telerehabilitation improve functional capacity, quality of life, and cardiovascular outcomes in patients after acute coronary syndrome and/or coronary revascularization compared with traditional cardiac rehabilitation or usual care?
Systematic Review (n=1,911)
Does telerehabilitation improve functional capacity, quality of life, and cardiovascular outcomes in patients after acute coronary syndrome and/or coronary revascularization compared with traditional cardiac rehabilitation or usual care?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Telerehabilitation via mobile or web-based platforms is a viable alternative to traditional cardiac rehabilitation, improving exercise capacity and adherence in patients post-ACS or revascularization.
BACKGROUND This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of telerehabilitation via mobile applications compared with conventional cardiac rehabilitation in patients after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or coronary revascularization, including percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The analysis focuses on physical capacity, quality of life, psychological well-being, health behaviors, cardiovascular and anthropometric parameters, and biochemical outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA and PICO guidelines. A total of 3674 records were identified through searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, of which 12 randomized controlled trials involving 1911 participants were included. The studies evaluated telerehabilitation delivered via mobile or web-based platforms in patients after ACS and/or coronary revascularization (PCI/CABG), compared with structured center-based cardiac rehabilitation or usual care. RESULTS Telerehabilitation was associated with greater improvements in exercise capacity, as measured by the 6-minute walk test and maximal oxygen uptake, adherence to physical activity and dietary recommendations, and selected quality of life and psychological outcomes compared with control conditions (P<0.05). In contrast, cardiovascular risk factors, including blood pressure, body mass index, waist-hip ratio, lipid profile, blood glucose level, and smoking cessation, improved in both groups, with no significant between-group differences (P>0.05). The magnitude of observed effects varied depending on the type of comparator. CONCLUSIONS Telerehabilitation appears to be a comparable alternative to traditional cardiac rehabilitation in patients after ACS and/or coronary revascularization (PCI/CABG), with potential benefits in adherence and selected patient-reported outcomes. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity in comparator interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anna Nowaczyk (2026) conducted a systematic review in Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or coronary revascularization (PCI/CABG) (n=1,911). Telerehabilitation via mobile or web-based platforms vs. Structured center-based cardiac rehabilitation or usual care was evaluated on Exercise capacity, adherence, quality of life, psychological outcomes, and cardiovascular risk factors (p=<0.05). Telerehabilitation improved exercise capacity, adherence, and quality of life compared with control conditions, with no significant between-group differences in cardiovascular risk factors.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: