Key result
Telerehabilitation matches centre-based cardiac rehabilitation for achieving 8-week cardiovascular and lifestyle targets.
Why the study?
Cardiac rehabilitation improves outcomes after ACS but access is suboptimal, and evidence for telerehabilitation in real-world public health systems is limited.
Does an 8-week structured telerehabilitation program improve the achievement of cardiovascular and lifestyle goals in adults with recent ACS compared to standard centre-based cardiac rehabilitation?
RCT (n=129)
Open-label
1:1
No
Does an 8-week structured telerehabilitation program improve the achievement of cardiovascular and lifestyle goals in adults with recent ACS compared to standard centre-based cardiac rehabilitation?
Absolute Event Rate: 86% vs 79.7%
p-value: p=0.37
In patients with recent ACS, an 8-week structured telerehabilitation program is as effective as conventional centre-based cardiac rehabilitation for controlling cardiovascular risk factors and improving functional capacity.
Telerehabilitation yields comparable goal attainment to centre-based programs; extends options for post-ACS cardiac rehabilitation delivery.
Aims Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves cardiovascular outcomes after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but access remains suboptimal. Telerehabilitation may overcome barriers, yet evidence from real world, public health systems is limited. This randomised controlled trial study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured telerehabilitation program compared with standard centre-based CR in patients after ACS, focusing on cardiovascular risk factor control and lifestyle adherence. Methods TELECOR is a pragmatic, open-label, randomised trial conducted at a tertiary public hospital. Adults with recent ACS were randomised 1:1 to an 8-week structured telerehabilitation or centre-based CR program. The primary outcome was achievement of a composite target (≥4 of 7 predefined cardiovascular and lifestyle goals) at 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes included changes in functional capacity, medication adherence, quality of life, psychological status, satisfaction, and cardiovascular events at 6 months. Results A total of 129 patients were randomised (65 telerehabilitation, 64 centre-based). At 8 weeks, 86% of telerehabilitation vs 79.7% of centre-based participants met the composite target (p=0.37). At 6 months, this was 87% vs 80.4% (p=0.34). Both groups showed similar improvements in functional capacity (≈+1 MET), adherence (>84%), and satisfaction (>91/100). No between-group differences were observed in clinical events or psychological outcomes. Conclusion In a real-world public hospital setting, telerehabilitation was non-inferior to conventional CR in achieving cardiovascular risk factor control and improving functional capacity. These results support the broader integration of digital CR models into routine secondary prevention care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boldo et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Acute Coronary Syndrome (n=129). Telerehabilitation vs. Centre-based cardiac rehabilitation was evaluated on Achievement of a composite target (≥4 of 7 predefined cardiovascular and lifestyle goals) at 8 weeks (p=0.37). Telerehabilitation was non-inferior to conventional centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in achieving composite cardiovascular and lifestyle targets at 8 weeks (86% vs 79.7%; P=0.37).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: