Remote cardiac rehabilitation reduced the 30-day emergency readmission rate to 0% compared to 12% in the non-rehabilitation group among patients hospitalized for heart failure.
Observational (n=236)
No
Does remote cardiac rehabilitation reduce emergency readmission and improve quality of life in patients hospitalized for heart failure with LVEF < 50%?
Remote cardiac rehabilitation via telephone support is an effective alternative to outpatient CR for reducing 30-day readmissions and improving quality of life in heart failure patients.
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 12%
p-value: p=0.02
BACKGROUND: In the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, people need to practice social distancing in order to protect themselves from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In such stressful situations, remote cardiac rehabilitation (CR) might be a viable alternative to the outpatient CR program. METHODS: We prospectively investigated patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) with a left ventricular ejection fraction of < 50%. As for patients who participated in the remote CR program, telephone support was provided by cardiologists and nurses who specialized in HF every 2 weeks after discharge. The emergency readmission rate within 30 days of discharge was compared among the outpatient CR, remote CR, and non-CR groups, and the EQ-5D score was compared between the outpatient CR and remote CR groups. RESULTS: The participation rate of HF patients in our remote CR program elevated during the COVID-19 pandemic. As observed in the outpatient CR group (n = 69), the emergency readmission rate within 30 days of discharge was lower in the remote CR group (n = 30) than in the non-CR group (n = 137) (P = 0.02). The EQ-5D score was higher in the remote CR group than in the outpatient CR group (P = 0.03) 30 days after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Remote CR is as effective as outpatient CR for improving the short-term prognosis of patients hospitalized for heart failure post-discharge. This suggests that the remote CR program can be provided as a good alternative to the outpatient CR program.
Nakayama et al. (Sat,) conducted a observational in Heart failure (n=236). Remote cardiac rehabilitation vs. Non-cardiac rehabilitation was evaluated on Emergency readmission within 30 days of discharge (p=0.02). Remote cardiac rehabilitation reduced the 30-day emergency readmission rate to 0% compared to 12% in the non-rehabilitation group among patients hospitalized for heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: