Key result
A community model of shared care cardiac rehabilitation resulted in similar full adherence to the program compared to hospital-based care (53% vs 54%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73-1.32).
Why the study?
Does a community model of shared care cardiac rehabilitation improve adherence and compliance with lifestyle modifications compared to hospital-based care in patients after acute coronary syndrome?
RCT (n=212)
randomised
Yes
Does a community model of shared care cardiac rehabilitation improve adherence and compliance with lifestyle modifications compared to hospital-based care in patients after acute coronary syndrome?
Relative Risk: 0.98 (95% CI 0.73–1.32)
Absolute Event Rate: 53% vs 54%
A community-based shared care model for cardiac rehabilitation after acute coronary syndrome is safe and effective, yielding comparable adherence and risk factor modification to traditional hospital-based care.
Community shared care cardiac rehabilitation offers a viable alternative to hospital-based programs; extends RCT evidence for decentralized post-ACS models.
AIM: To investigate whether phase II cardiac rehabilitation (CR) conducted by a community model of shared care CR (SC-CR) including health care centres and general practice was feasible and provided acceptable results and to compare SC-CR to hospital-based CR (H-CR) in a randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Patients were randomised to H-CR or SC-CR after admission for acute coronary syndrome. In SC-CR, the general practitioner took over the responsibility of the remaining rehabilitation, pharmacological treatment and risk factor management after the initial visit to the hospital outpatient clinic. The Municipal Health Care Centres provided courses on smoking cessation, nutrition, and exercise training and contributed to disease education and psychosocial support. The main endpoint was adherence to the CR programme and compliance with lifestyle modifications. RESULTS: In total, 1364 patients were screened, 327 (24%) were eligible, and 212 (65%) accepted participation. Phase II CR was completed by 192 (91%) of the participants. Full adherence to the CR programme was seen in 53% in SC-CR versus 54% in H-CR (relative risk (RR): 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.32). In H-CR, patients had higher rates of adherence to dietary advice and health education. In SC-CR, 12% of patients did not attend the risk factor evaluation and clinical assessment with their general practitioner. No difference in risk factor improvement was found. Exercise training was declined by 25% in both groups. CONCLUSION: Adherence to phase II CR was high in both groups. SC-CR did not improve adherence and efficacy, but had comparable effects on medication and risk factors. Thus, SC-CR was safe and effective.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bertelsen et al. (2016) conducted an RCT in acute coronary syndrome (n=212). Community model of shared care cardiac rehabilitation (SC-CR) vs. Hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation (H-CR) was evaluated on Adherence to the CR programme and compliance with lifestyle modifications (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73-1.32). A community model of shared care cardiac rehabilitation resulted in similar full adherence to the program compared to hospital-based care (53% vs 54%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73-1.32).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: