Key result
Tele-supervised prehabilitation increases preoperative daily steps by ~38% in high-risk non-cardiac but not cardiac patients.
Why the study?
To assess physical activity in steps per day in high-risk cardiac and non-cardiac surgical patients receiving home-based tele-supervised prehabilitation versus standard of care, and compare steps per day with raw acceleration metrics.
Does a multimodal home-based tele-supervised prehabilitation programme improve steps per day in patients ≥ 65 years awaiting elective cardiac or non-cardiac major surgery with a fitness deficit?
Population
200 patients ≥ 65 years awaiting elective cardiac or non-cardiac major surgery with proven fitness deficit
Comparison
Multimodal home-based tele-supervised prehabilitation over 2-4 weeks vs standard of care
Design
Single-centre prospective two-arm parallel group randomised controlled trial
Authors
Loading...
Supports tele-supervised prehabilitation before high-risk non-cardiac surgery; extends RCT evidence while questioning benefit in cardiac patients.
RCT (n=167)
Blinded outcome assessment
Two-arm parallel group
No
Does a multimodal home-based tele-supervised prehabilitation programme improve steps per day in patients ≥ 65 years awaiting elective cardiac or non-cardiac major surgery with a fitness deficit?
Absolute Event Rate: 4662% vs 3378%
p-value: p=0.042
A multimodal home-based prehabilitation program increased preoperative daily steps in high-risk non-cardiac surgery patients but not in cardiac surgery patients.
Vetsch et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Elective cardiac or non-cardiac major surgery with fitness deficit (n=167). Multimodal home-based tele-supervised prehabilitation vs. Standard of care was evaluated on Steps per day in the preoperative period (non-cardiac patients) (p=0.042). A multimodal home-based tele-supervised prehabilitation program significantly increased preoperative steps per day in high-risk non-cardiac surgery patients (4662 vs 3378 steps, p=0.042), but not in cardiac patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: