Key result
Home rehabilitation increased the probability of being fully physically active at 30.1 months compared to standard in-office rehabilitation (77.1% vs 56.0%; OR 3.0; 95% CI 1.9-6.0; p<0.0001).
Why the study?
Physical activity is a class IA recommendation after acute coronary syndrome, but fewer than 40% of patients remain active at 1 year, and home rehabilitation could improve adherence and persistence.
Does adding a home rehabilitation programme to standard in-office rehabilitation improve physical activity adherence in patients after an acute coronary syndrome?
Cohort (n=372)
No
Does adding a home rehabilitation programme to standard in-office rehabilitation improve physical activity adherence in patients after an acute coronary syndrome?
Odds Ratio: 3 (95% CI 1.9–6)
Absolute Event Rate: 77.1% vs 56%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Home rehabilitation is a feasible and effective strategy to promote long-term physical activity adherence in secondary prevention after an acute coronary syndrome.
Home rehabilitation was associated with higher long-term activity adherence after ACS; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation.
Physical activity is a mainstay (class IA) of rehabilitation programme after an acute coronary syndrome, but less than 40% of patients is physically active at one year. Home-rehabilitation, initially designed to manage the increasing number of patients in rehabilitation programmes, could result in a better strategy to increase adherence and persistence to physical activity. Objectives: To test such hypothesis, At Cardiac Rehabilitation Centre (Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Udine, Italy), physical activity adherence was compared between patients treated with a standard in-office rehabilitation programme and a cohort where home rehabilitation programme was added. Methods: From February 2017 to February 2019, 372 patients after an acute coronary syndrome (72 were excluded according to study criteria) were included, 193 patients in standard rehabilitation and 179 in home rehabilitation. At the end of follow-up, patients of both groups were called on the telephone to collect physical activity items according to a standardized questionnaire. Results: At a medium follow-up of 30.1 months, there are more physically active patients in home rehabilitation than in standard, respectively 139 vs 108 patients (77,1% vs. 56%, p < 0,0001).At multivariate analysis, including age, gender, and rehabilitation model, the probability to be fully physically active at the end of the rehabilitation programme, is 3 times higher (OR 3.0 CI 1,9-6,0 p < 0,0001) for home rehabilitation programme compared to standard one. Conclusions: Home rehabilitation, when applied to selected populations, resulted in a feasible and effective strategy to promote long term physical activity in secondary prevention after an acute coronary syndrome.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Werren et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Acute coronary syndrome (n=372). Home rehabilitation programme vs. Standard in-office rehabilitation programme was evaluated on Fully physically active at the end of the rehabilitation programme (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.9-6.0, p=<0.0001). Home rehabilitation increased the probability of being fully physically active at 30.1 months compared to standard in-office rehabilitation (77.1% vs 56.0%; OR 3.0; 95% CI 1.9-6.0; p<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: