Key result
Home-based cardiac rehabilitation matches center-based programs for mortality, morbidity, and exercise capacity in stable patients.
Why the study?
Participation in conventional center-based cardiac rehabilitation remains low, prompting evaluation of home-based cardiac rehabilitation as an alternative delivery model.
Does home-based cardiac rehabilitation achieve comparable outcomes and adherence compared to center-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with cardiovascular disease?
Does home-based cardiac rehabilitation achieve comparable outcomes and adherence compared to center-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with cardiovascular disease?
Home-based cardiac rehabilitation represents a viable, effective, and safe complementary model to center-based programs, capable of expanding equitable access to secondary prevention for stable cardiovascular patients.
Supports home-based options to boost participation in stable patients; leaves open optimal delivery and long-term adherence questions.
Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an evidence-based secondary prevention strategy for patients with cardiovascular disease, yet participation in conventional center-based programs remains low. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) has emerged as an alternative delivery model intended to reduce access barriers while preserving the core components of CR. Methods: This narrative review synthesizes contemporary evidence and implementation literature on HBCR, with emphasis on clinical effectiveness, digital and hybrid delivery models, equity, and health-system implementation. Results: Current evidence indicates that HBCR can achieve outcomes comparable to center-based CR in selected clinically stable, low- to moderate-risk patients, including similar effects on mortality, morbidity, exercise capacity, and cardiovascular risk-factor modification. Digital health tools and hybrid models may improve reach, adherence, monitoring, and personalization. However, implementation remains uneven, reimbursement pathways are inconsistent, and many studies have limited representation of women, racial and ethnic minority groups, older adults, socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, and patients with complex comorbidities. Conclusion: HBCR should be viewed as a complementary model within comprehensive CR rather than a universal replacement for center-based services. Future work should prioritize transparent implementation frameworks, equitable digital access, long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and identification of patients best served by home-based, center-based, or hybrid CR models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2026) conducted a review in Cardiovascular diseases. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) vs. Center-based cardiac rehabilitation was evaluated. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation achieves outcomes comparable to center-based programs in clinically stable, low- to moderate-risk patients, including similar effects on mortality, morbidity, and exercise capacity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: