Objective Improvement in Daily Physical Activity in Heart Failure Remains Elusive: A Systematic Review

Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based and technology-supported cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation, especially during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009, 2015, and 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of home-based (which may include digital/telehealth interventions) and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, exercise-capacity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) on 16 September 2022. We also searched two clinical trials registers as well as previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, sports/community centre) with home-based programmes (± digital/telehealth platforms) in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure, or who had undergone revascularisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on predefined inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third review author. Two authors independently extracted outcome data and study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three new trials in this update, bringing a total of 24 trials that have randomised a total of 3046 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. A further nine studies were identified and are awaiting classification. Manual searching of trial registers until 16 September 2022 revealed a further 14 clinical trial registrations - these are ongoing. Participants had a history of acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation, or heart failure. Although there was little evidence of high risk of bias, a number of studies provided insufficient detail to enable assessment of potential risk of bias; in particular, details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequencing and blinding of outcome assessment were poorly reported. No evidence of a difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in our primary outcomes up to 12 months of follow-up: total mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65 to 2.16; participants = 1647; studies = 12/comparisons = 14; low-certainty evidence) or exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.10, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.04; participants = 2343; studies = 24/comparisons = 28; low-certainty evidence). The majority of evidence (N=71 / 77 comparisons of either total or domain scores) showed no significant difference in health-related quality of life up to 24 months follow-up between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Trials were generally of short duration, with only three studies reporting outcomes beyond 12 months (exercise capacity: SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.23; participants = 1074; studies = 3; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a similar level of trial completion (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.08; participants = 2638; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low-certainty evidence) between home-based and centre-based participants. The cost per patient of centre- and home-based programmes was similar.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update supports previous conclusions that home- (± digital/telehealth platforms) and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation formally supported by healthcare staff seem to be similarly effective in improving clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction, or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding supports the continued expansion of healthcare professional supervised home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes (± digital/telehealth platforms), especially important in the context of the ongoing global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic that has much limited patients in face-to-face access of hospital and community health services. Where settings are able to provide both supervised centre- and home-based programmes, consideration of the preference of the individual patient would seem appropriate. Although not included in the scope of this review, there is an increasing evidence base supporting the use of hybrid models that combine elements of both centre-based and home-based cardiac rehabilitation delivery. Further data are needed to determine: (1) whether the short-term effects of home/digital-telehealth and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation models of delivery can be confirmed in the longer term; (2) the relative clinical effectiveness and safety of home-based programmes for other heart patients, e.g. post-valve surgery and atrial fibrillation.

Dynamic factor analysis of seasonal variation in daily physical activity in individuals with heart failure and implanted cardiac devices

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present study was to determine the presence and magnitude of seasonal variation in daily physical activity (PA) in those with heart failure (HF).

METHODS

Retrospective study and dynamic factor analysis (DFA) of Patient Activity data from Medtronic implanted cardioverter defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization devices (ICD/CRTs).

RESULTS

In a data set of 435 patients, distinct states/trends were identified by DFA including a classic, sinusoidal pattern of seasonal variation and a pattern of decline over the course of 12 months, which were associated with specific clinical characteristics. Overall, model fitting was good.

CONCLUSIONS

Those with low comorbidities, better NYHA Class, higher BMI, no hospitalization, and male sex demonstrated greater seasonal variation of at least 40 min per day between winter (lowest PA) and spring/summer (highest PA). Those with female sex and hospitalization demonstrated overall downward trajectories of approximately 40 and 80 min, respectively, over the course of the year.

Advances in accelerometry for cardiovascular patients: a systematic review with practical recommendations

Aims

Accelerometers are becoming increasingly commonplace for assessing physical activity; however, their use in patients with cardiovascular diseases is relatively substandard. We aimed to systematically review the methods used for collecting and processing accelerometer data in cardiology, using the example of heart failure, and to provide practical recommendations on how to improve objective physical activity assessment in patients with cardiovascular diseases by using accelerometers.

Methods and results

Four electronic databases were searched up to September 2019 for observational, interventional, and validation studies using accelerometers to assess physical activity in patients with heart failure. Study and population characteristics, details of accelerometry data collection and processing, and description of physical activity metrics were extracted from the eligible studies and synthesized. To assess the quality and completeness of accelerometer reporting, the studies were scored using 12 items on data collection and processing, such as the placement of accelerometer, days of data collected, and criteria for non‐wear of the accelerometer. In 60 eligible studies with 3500 patients (of those, 536 were heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients), a wide variety of accelerometer brands (n = 27) and models (n = 46) were used, with Actigraph being the most frequent (n = 12), followed by Fitbit (n = 5). The accelerometer was usually worn on the hip (n = 32), and the most prevalent wear period was 7 days (n = 22). The median wear time required for a valid day was 600 min, and between two and five valid days was required for a patient to be included in the analysis. The most common measures of physical activity were steps (n = 20), activity counts (n = 15), and time spent in moderate‐to‐vigorous physical activity (n = 14). Only three studies validated accelerometers in a heart failure population, showing that their accuracy deteriorates at slower speeds. Studies failed to report between one and six (median 4) of the 12 scored items, with non‐wear time criteria and valid day definition being the most underreported items.

Conclusions

The use of accelerometers in cardiology lacks consistency and reporting on data collection, and processing methods need to be improved. Furthermore, calculating metrics based on raw acceleration and machine learning techniques is lacking, opening the opportunity for future exploration. Therefore, we encourage researchers and clinicians to improve the quality and transparency of data collection and processing by following our proposed practical recommendations for using accelerometers in patients with cardiovascular diseases, which are outlined in the article.

Physical Therapist Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Individuals With Heart Failure

The American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), in conjunction with the Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Section of APTA, have commissioned the development of this clinical practice guideline to assist physical therapists in their clinical decision making when managing patients with heart failure. Physical therapists treat patients with varying degrees of impairments and limitations in activity and participation associated with heart failure pathology across the continuum of care. This document will guide physical therapist practice in the examination and treatment of patients with a known diagnosis of heart failure. The development of this clinical practice guideline followed a structured process and resulted in 9 key action statements to guide physical therapist practice. The level and quality of available evidence were graded based on specific criteria to determine the strength of each action statement. Clinical algorithms were developed to guide the physical therapist in appropriate clinical decision making. Physical therapists are encouraged to work collaboratively with other members of the health care team in implementing these action statements to improve the activity, participation, and quality of life in individuals with heart failure and reduce the incidence of heart failure-related re-admissions.