Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
September 4, 2026Open Access

Center-based Phase II cardiac rehabilitation yields greater quality of life improvements than home-based rehabilitation.

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Why the study?

Whether center-based or home-based delivery of Phase II cardiac rehabilitation yields comparable benefit remains debated, especially in low-resource settings.

Does center-based Phase II cardiac rehabilitation improve health-related quality of life compared to home-based rehabilitation in post-CABG patients?

Comparison

Center-based cardiac rehabilitation vs home-based cardiac rehabilitation

Design

Randomized controlled trial

Follow-up

4 weeks

Key result

Center-based Phase II cardiac rehabilitation yielded greater improvements in quality of life than home-based rehabilitation, though both groups showed significant within-group improvement (p<0.05).

Authors

SAShehanshah Kazmi1*, Maria Liaqat2, Muhammad Naveed Babur3, Shoukat Ali4

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Center-based Phase II rehab may be prioritized post-CABG for greater QoL gains; extends RCT evidence favoring supervised over home-based programs.

Key Points

  • To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of center-based versus home-based Phase II cardiac rehabilitation on health-related quality of life in patients recovering from coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
  • Randomized controlled trial involving 40 post-CABG patients (>30 years) recruited within three months of surgery in Pakistan and allocated to center-based (n = 20) or home-based (n = 20) rehabilitation.
  • Both arms participated in a 4-week, thrice-weekly exercise regimen (warm-up, aerobic conditioning, cool-down); the center group utilized direct supervision and telemetry monitoring, whereas the home group used an exercise pamphlet and weekly telephone follow-ups.
  • Health-related quality of life was measured using the SF-36 questionnaire at baseline (Week 1) and after 4 weeks, with within-group and between-group outcomes evaluated via paired and independent-samples t-tests.
  • Both center-based and home-based cohorts achieved statistically significant within-group improvements (p < 0.05) across nearly all SF-36 quality of life domains after 4 weeks.
  • Patients in the center-based group achieved numerically larger gains in physical functioning, role limitations (physical and emotional), bodily pain, social function, and general health compared to the home-based group, while emotional well-being gains were comparable.

Study Design

Type

RCT (n=40)

Randomization

lottery method

Multicenter

No

Structured PICO

Does center-based Phase II cardiac rehabilitation improve health-related quality of life compared to home-based rehabilitation in post-CABG patients?

P
Population
40 post-CABG patients aged >30 years, recruited within three months of surgery, who completed a 4-week cardiac rehabilitation program.
I
Intervention
Center-based Phase II cardiac rehabilitation (structured, 4-week, thrice-weekly exercise protocol comprising warm-up, aerobic conditioning, and cool-down) under direct supervision with telemetry monitoring.
C
Comparator
Home-based Phase II cardiac rehabilitation following a prescribed home-exercise pamphlet with weekly telephone monitoring for 4 weeks.
O
Outcome
Health-related quality of life assessed with the SF-36 questionnaire at 4 weeks.patient reported

Main Result

p-value: p=<0.05

Center-based Phase II cardiac rehabilitation provides greater improvements in quality of life compared to home-based rehabilitation in post-CABG patients, though home-based remains a meaningful alternative.

Cite This Study

Shehanshah Kazmi1*, Maria Liaqat2, Muhammad Naveed Babur3, Shoukat Ali4 (2026) conducted an RCT in post-coronary artery bypass graft (n=40). Center-based Phase II cardiac rehabilitation vs. Home-based Phase II cardiac rehabilitation was evaluated on Health-related quality of life (SF-36 questionnaire) (p=<0.05). Center-based Phase II cardiac rehabilitation yielded greater improvements in quality of life than home-based rehabilitation, though both groups showed significant within-group improvement (p<0.05).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9a860d5d9e33f25c631832https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22252786
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share