Why the study?
Data on patient-centered outcomes of mobile health cardiac rehabilitation (mHealth-CR) for older adults with ischemic heart disease are limited.
Does mobile health cardiac rehabilitation improve personalized goal attainment compared with usual care in older adults with ischemic heart disease?
Does mobile health cardiac rehabilitation improve personalized goal attainment compared with usual care in older adults with ischemic heart disease?
While mHealth-CR does not significantly improve traditional clinical outcomes like 6-minute walk distance over usual care in older adults with ischemic heart disease, it significantly increases the likelihood that patients will exceed their individualized patient-centered rehabilitation goals.
mHealth-CR does not improve functional outcomes over usual care in older IHD patients; challenges adoption and leaves open optimal CR delivery.
BACKGROUND: Data on patient-centered outcomes of mobile health cardiac rehabilitation (mHealth-CR) for older adults with ischemic heart disease are limited. The RESILIENT (Rehabilitation at Home Using Mobile Health in Older Adults After Hospitalization for Ischemic Heart Disease) trial, the largest randomized study of mHealth-CR in this population, found no significant improvements in functional capacity, health status, angina, or disability compared with usual care. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether mHealth-CR affects personalized goal attainment-a prespecified secondary endpoint of RESILIENT-using goal attainment scaling (GAS). METHODS: A total of 400 patients (≥65 years) with ischemic heart disease were randomized to mHealth-CR or usual care. Participants specified goals for CR at baseline using the five-category goal attainment scale: much-less-than-expected (-2), less-than-expected (-1), expected (0), better-than-expected (+1), and much-better-than-expected (+2). Goal attainment was assessed at 3 months. RESULTS: Of 400 patients (median age, 71.0 years [range 65.0-91.0]; 72.8% male; 65.2% prefrail/frail) randomized to mHealth-CR (n = 298) or usual care (n = 102), 353 (88.3%) completed GAS. Most goals addressed physical activity (54.0% mHealth-CR vs 59.0% usual care), health care behaviors (14.4% vs 11.9%), or symptom management (13.1% vs 9.0%). Rates of attaining or exceeding goals (GAS ≥0) were similar between groups (80.5% vs 77.6%; P = 0.492). However, in the intervention arm, there was a higher rate of exceeding expected level of goal attainment (GAS +1, +2) compared with usual care (52.6% vs 34.2%; P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In a trial that did not demonstrate differences on traditional endpoints, those receiving mHealth-CR were more likely to exceed personalized CR goals. These findings suggest the intervention facilitated greater progress toward individualized goals and underscore the importance of patient-centered outcomes in CR. (Rehabilitation at Home Using Mobile Health In Older Adults After Hospitalization for Ischemic Heart Disease [RESILIENT]; NCT03978130).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shwayder et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: