Key result
Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (n=511) demonstrated similar improvements in QoL and risk factors compared to center-based rehabilitation (n=765) (P=0.26).
Why the study?
Few studies had evaluated home-based cardiac rehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to prepandemic center-based cardiac rehabilitation regarding patient characteristics, participation rates, and efficacy on clinical metrics, health-related quality of life, and modifiable risk factors.
Does home-based cardiac rehabilitation improve clinical metrics, quality of life, and modifiable risk factors similarly to center-based cardiac rehabilitation in cardiac patients?
Cohort (n=1,276)
Yes
Does home-based cardiac rehabilitation improve clinical metrics, quality of life, and modifiable risk factors similarly to center-based cardiac rehabilitation in cardiac patients?
p-value: p=0.26
Home-based cardiac rehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated similar participation rates and effectiveness in improving intermediate clinical outcomes compared to conventional center-based rehabilitation.
May support home-based cardiac rehabilitation when center access is limited; leaves open randomized confirmation of equivalence.
Background: Few studies have evaluated home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) during the pandemic, compared to prepandemic center-based CR (CBCR), with respect to patient characteristics, participation rates, and its efficacy on clinical metrics, health-related quality of life (QoL), and modifiable risk factors. Objectives: We aimed to describe patient characteristics and participation rates for those attending HBCR compared to patients who attended CBCR and compare the effects of HBCR vs CBCR on clinical metrics, health-related QoL, and modifiable risk factors in CR patients pre vs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A retrospective cohort study comparing 511 HBCR patients and 765 CBCR patients from the Mayo Clinic Health System. HBCR included 12 sessions. Conventional CBCR included 36 sessions. Clinical outcomes before and after CR were assessed. Results: = 0.26). Both groups demonstrated similar improvements in nutrition, depression, QoL, glucose intolerance, and lipid profiles. Conclusions: Patients participating in HBCR during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated similar participation rates compared to CBCR. HBCR appears to be similarly effective at improving several intermediate outcomes compared to CBCR. HBCR may be a suitable alternative CR delivery model to increase CR participation for a wide range of clinical indications and improve clinical outcomes in patients who are unable to participate in CBCR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hama et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Cardiac rehabilitation (n=1,276). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) vs. Center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) was evaluated on Clinical metrics, health-related QoL, and modifiable risk factors (p=0.26). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (n=511) demonstrated similar improvements in QoL and risk factors compared to center-based rehabilitation (n=765) (P=0.26).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: