Key result
Home-based cardiac telerehabilitation matches or modestly exceeds centre-based programs for functional capacity.
Why the study?
Global referral and completion rates for exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation after coronary events remain low, motivating study of home-based cardiac telerehabilitation to close this participation gap.
Does home-based cardiac telerehabilitation improve functional capacity compared to centre-based cardiac rehabilitation or usual care in patients with coronary heart disease or heart failure?
Does home-based cardiac telerehabilitation improve functional capacity compared to centre-based cardiac rehabilitation or usual care in patients with coronary heart disease or heart failure?
Home-based cardiac telerehabilitation, especially when supported by mHealth and wearable sensors, provides a viable and effective alternative to centre-based programs for improving functional capacity after coronary events.
May support wider cardiac rehabilitation access via home-based models; leaves open optimal implementation and long-term outcome data.
Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a guideline-endorsed, physiotherapist-delivered intervention that reduces cardiovascular mortality and hospital readmission after coronary events, yet global referral and completion rates remain low.Home-based cardiac telerehabilitation (HBCTR), delivered through mobile health (mHealth) platforms, wearable sensors, and remote monitoring, has become one of the most actively studied strategies for closing this participation gap.This short communication synthesises recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing HBCTR with centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) in coronary heart disease and heart failure, outlines the shift toward hybrid and technology-enabled delivery models, and discusses implications for cardiovascular physiotherapy practice.Recent pooled analyses show that health-supported HBCTR produces clinically meaningful gains in peak oxygen uptake and six-minute walk distance compared with usual care, with effects broadly comparable to centre-based programmes, and that wearable-sensor-assisted models modestly outperform centre-based rehabilitation on cardiorespiratory fitness in some analyses.Evidence in heart failure populations remains more heterogeneous.We argue that cardiovascular physiotherapy services should adopt stratified, hybrid CR pathways that match delivery mode to patient risk and preference, rather than treating home-based and centre-based rehabilitation as separate, competing services.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kilani Kusuma (2026) conducted a review in Coronary heart disease and heart failure. Home-based cardiac telerehabilitation (HBCTR) vs. Centre-based cardiac rehabilitation or usual care was evaluated. Home-based cardiac telerehabilitation supported by mHealth platforms and wearable sensors achieves functional capacity outcomes comparable to or modestly exceeding centre-based cardiac rehabilitation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: