Key result
Home-based cardiac rehabilitation and center-based cardiac rehabilitation both significantly improved cardiovascular risk factors, including LDL cholesterol and exercise capacity, with no significant differences between the two programs at 6 months.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare the efficacy of home-based cardiac rehabilitation and center-based cardiac rehabilitation in cardiovascular risk factor management.
Does home-based cardiac rehabilitation improve cardiovascular risk factors as effectively as center-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
Cohort (n=72)
No
Does home-based cardiac rehabilitation improve cardiovascular risk factors as effectively as center-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
Absolute Event Rate: 60.6% vs 65.8%
p-value: p=>0.05
Home-based cardiac rehabilitation is an effective alternative to center-based programs for improving cardiovascular risk factors and functional capacity in patients following acute coronary syndrome.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) and center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) in cardiovascular risk factor management. METHODS: We performed retrospective review of the electronic medical records of 72 patients who were hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome and participated in a cardiac rehabilitation (CR) program for the first time. The participants were stratified into the HBCR group, receiving educational programs and performing self-exercise at home, and the CBCR group, participating in electrocardiogram monitoring monitoring exercise training in hospital settings. The results of the Lifestyle Questionnaire survey were investigated at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. RESULTS: Both groups showed significant improvements in serum low-density lipoprotein levels, frequency of alcohol consumption, eating habits and psychological status. Moderate-intensity exercise duration and the maximal metabolic equivalents values improved significantly in both groups but slightly more in the CBCR group. However, the number of current smokers increased in both groups, and no significant changes were found in body mass index, serum glycated hemoglobin levels, serum high-density lipoprotein levels, or high-intensity exercise duration. CONCLUSION: Regardless of the CR program type, a patient's lifestyle can be modified. Therefore, patients should continue participating in any type of CR program.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Acute coronary syndrome (n=72). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation vs. Center-based cardiac rehabilitation was evaluated on Serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels at 6 months (p=>0.05). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation and center-based cardiac rehabilitation both significantly improved cardiovascular risk factors, including LDL cholesterol and exercise capacity, with no significant differences between the two programs at 6 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: