Effects of Center Based vs. Telerehabilitation using an Interval and Continuous Aerobic Training among Post-Coronary Revascularization Patients-A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: This investigation used continuous aerobic and high-intensity interval training to compare the differences between centre-based and telerehabilitation. This study seeks to identify the most efficient rehabilitation strategy positioned to empower patients on their path to recovery and well-being in the contemporary era of cardiac care. Methodology: The study was a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial involving 80 patients who had undergone coronary revascularization procedures, were enrolled in the cardiac rehabilitation department, and were eligible for Phase-III CR. Patients were divided into Group A, receiving centre-based Continuous Moderate-Intensity Aerobic Exercise, 3–4 days a week, at 50%-70% of MHR. Group B received high-intensity interval-based training for 3–4 days and at four subsequent intervals. Telerehabilitation was conducted with Group C following the same protocol as Group A and Group D following the same protocol as Group B, while each group had n=20 participants. Results: The within-group analysis showed significant improvements in the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) and Self-reported Seven-Day Physical Activity Questionnaire (PAR) across all groups (p<0.001). Significant improvements in the Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) were found in Groups A and B (p<0.05). ANOVA results indicated that centre-based rehabilitation was significantly more effective than telerehabilitation in improving 6MWT and RPE scores (p<0.05). Conclusion: Centre-based intervention is more effective than telerehabilitation in Phase-III Cardia Rehabilitation patients. However, high-intensity interval-based training was more effective in centre-based, while continuous moderate-intensity aerobic exercise was effective in telerehabilitation.