Virtual cardiac rehabilitation significantly reduced 1-year all-cause hospital readmission compared to center-based programs (IRR 0.616; 95% CI 0.489-0.777; P<0.001).
Cohort
Does virtual cardiac rehabilitation improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs compared to center-based cardiac rehabilitation in eligible patients?
Virtual cardiac rehabilitation is a viable alternative to center-based programs, associated with significant reductions in 1-year hospital readmissions, emergency department visits, and total healthcare costs.
Relative Risk: 0.616 (95% CI 0.489–0.777)
p-value: p=<0.001
Background Despite robust evidence supporting an association with improved outcomes in eligible patients, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) remains underused, with a minority of eligible patients participating. Virtual cardiac rehabilitation (VCR) has been proposed as an alternative to traditional center‐based CR (CBCR) to improve usage rates. However, data supporting the efficacy and cost‐effectiveness of VCR are limited. In the present study, we compared the outcomes and cost of a VCR versus traditional CBCR program. Methods and Results In a retrospective cohort study comparing VCR versus CBCR, CBCR data were collected from a period of January 2018 to September 2023. VCR data were collected from program initiation in July 2021 to September 2023. Primary health outcomes measured were 1‐year mortality rates, recurrent myocardial infarction, all‐cause hospital readmission, and emergency department visits. Primary cost outcomes were analyzed as cost ratios related to VCR versus CBCR assessing total medical costs allowed, pharmacy costs, and total costs of care over the 12 months post‐CR enrollment. VCR was associated with a significant reduction in 1‐year all‐cause hospital readmission (incident rate ratio IRR, 0.616 95% CI, 0.489–0.777, P <0.001) and ED admission (IRR, 0.557 95% CI, 0.452–0.687, P <0.001) at 1 year. The IRR of myocardial infarction and all‐cause mortality did not significantly differ between VCR and CBCR. In addition, VCR was associated with significant reductions in medically related (cost ratio, 0.814 95% CI, 0.690–0.960, P =0.0144) and total costs allowed (cost ratio, 0.838 95% CI, 0.725–0.970, P =0.0176). Conclusions VCR is a viable alternative to CBCR with at least comparable efficacy and cost, and as such, represents a key mechanism for improving access to and participation in CR for eligible patients.
Shah et al. (Sat,) conducted a cohort in Eligible for cardiac rehabilitation. Virtual cardiac rehabilitation (VCR) vs. Traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) was evaluated on 1-year all-cause hospital readmission (IRR 0.616, 95% CI 0.489-0.777, p=<0.001). Virtual cardiac rehabilitation significantly reduced 1-year all-cause hospital readmission compared to center-based programs (IRR 0.616; 95% CI 0.489-0.777; P<0.001).