Key result
Inpatient and outpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation improved 1-month patient-reported outcomes vs usual care, but only outpatient rehab maintained these improvements at 3 months.
Why the study?
Does inpatient or outpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation improve patient-reported outcomes compared to usual care?
Cohort (n=216)
Does inpatient or outpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation improve patient-reported outcomes compared to usual care?
Outpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation provides more sustained improvements in patient-reported quality of life and psychological symptoms at 3 months compared to a 4-week inpatient program.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Outpatient cardiac rehabilitation may sustain early patient-reported gains; this Level 3 cohort finding leaves open the need for randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND: An objective of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation is improvement in patient-reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life as well as anxiety and depressive symptoms. There are no direct comparisons of the effectiveness of inpatient and outpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes on patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: In this non-randomized study we collected patient-reported outcomes data with the MacNew Heart Disease health-related quality of life questionnaire and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at baseline, 1 month and again 3 months after admission to exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in a cohort of 216 consecutive patients enrolled either in a 4-week inpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (n=62) or a 3-month outpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (n=87) and in a usual care group (n=67) to document the natural course in patient-reported outcome variables without exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. RESULTS: Although MacNew health-related quality of life scores improved more with inpatient than outpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation by month 1, the improvement was still significant in both groups at month 3 and also in the usual care group when compared to baseline. The health-related quality of life scores in the inpatient group, however, decreased between month 1 and 3 whereas they continued to improve in the outpatient group. The significant reduction in both anxiety and depressive symptoms in both exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation groups by month 1 was maintained at month 3 only with outpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. No significant changes over the 3 months were observed in the usual care group. CONCLUSION: Significant improvements of 1-month patient-reported outcomes are achieved in patients attending inpatient as well as outpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation when compared with no exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. In contrast to inpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation, however, outpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation leads to a further improvement of patient-reported outcomes. These results suggest that, if patients have to be admitted for inpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation, this programme should be followed by an outpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation to further improve and stabilize these patient-reported outcome variables.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Benzer et al. (2007) conducted a cohort in Heart disease requiring cardiac rehabilitation (n=216). Inpatient and outpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation vs. Usual care was evaluated on Patient-reported outcomes (health-related quality of life, anxiety, and depressive symptoms). Inpatient and outpatient exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation improved 1-month patient-reported outcomes vs usual care, but only outpatient rehab maintained these improvements at 3 months.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: