A hybrid cardiac rehabilitation is as effective as a hospital-based program in reducing chest pain intensity and discomfort

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.

A hybrid exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation program is an effective strategy to improve muscle strength and functional exercise capacity in adults and older people with coronary artery disease

Coronary heart disease is the most common cause of death worldwide. Standard cardiac rehabilitation (face-to-face sessions) has shown benefits in increasing muscle strength and functional exercise capacity in adults and older people. However, it is unknown whether hybrid cardiac rehabilitation (a first face-to-face phase + a second remote monitoring phase) will have similar benefits in adults versus older subjects. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of a hybrid exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation program on muscle strength and functional exercise capacity in “adult” versus “older” people with coronary artery disease. We hypothesized that a hybrid exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation program would improve muscle strength and functional exercise capacity, but the impact would be smaller in the older group than the adult individuals. This study is part of a larger project (The Hybrid Cardiac Rehabilitation Trial-HYCARET). We subjected 22 adult (<60 y) females and males (ADULT; n = 5/17 (f/m); 52 ± 5 y; 28.9 ± 3.4 kg·m-2) and 20 older (≥60 y) females and males (OLDER; n = 6/14 (f/m); 66 ± 4 y; 27.4 ± 3.9 kg·m-2) with coronary artery disease to 12 weeks of hybrid exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation program. Prior to and after 12 weeks of a hybrid exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation program, grip strength (handgrip), leg strength (chair stand test), and functional exercise capacity (6-minute walk test, 6MWT) were assessed. The hybrid exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation program resulted in a 9.4 ± 14.6% and a 6.2 ± 12.1% grip strength increase, a 14.4 ± 39.4% and a 28.9 ± 48.1% legs strength increase, and a 14.6 ± 26.4% and a 6.8 ± 14.0% functional exercise capacity improvement in ADULT and OLDER, respectively (p < 0.05) with no differences between groups. In conclusion, a hybrid exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation program could increase muscle strength and improve functional exercise capacity in adults and older people with coronary artery disease. More future studies comparing effectiveness among these age groups are needed to strengthen this conclusion.

Updated Outpatient Cardiac Rehabilitation Delivery Formats Tailored to the Iranian Population

This article is a Letter to Editor and does not include an Abstract.

Inclusion of People Poststroke in Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs in Canada: A Missed Opportunity for Referral

BACKGROUND

Evidence supports establishing a continuum of care from stroke rehabilitation (SR) to cardiac rehabilitation programs (CRPs). It is not known to what extent people poststroke are being integrated. This study aimed to determine the proportion of CRPs that accept referrals poststroke, barriers/facilitators, and eligibility criteria.

METHODS

A web-based questionnaire was sent to CRPs across Canada.

RESULTS

Of 160 questionnaires sent, 114 representatives (71%) of 130 CRPs responded. Of respondents, 65% (n = 74) reported accepting people with a diagnosis of stroke and doing so for a median of 11 years, 11 offering stroke-specific classes and an additional 6 planning inclusion. However, 62.5% of CRPs reported that < 11 patients participated in the last calendar year despite 88.5% reporting no limit to the number they could enroll. Among CRPs, 25% accepted only patients with concurrent cardiac diagnoses, living in the community (47.8%), and without severe mobility (70.1%), communication (80.6%), or cognitive (85.1%) deficits. The 2 most influential barriers and facilitators among all CRPs were funding and staffing. The fourth greatest barrier was lack of poststroke referrals, and third to sixth facilitators were SR/CRP collaboration to ensure appropriate referrals (third) and to increase referrals (sixth), toolkits for prescribing resistance (fourth), and aerobic training (fifth). CRP characteristics associated with accepting stroke were a hybrid program model, a medium program size, and having a falls prevention component.

CONCLUSIONS

Most CRPs accept patients poststroke, but few participate. Therefore, establishing SR/CRP partnerships to increase appropriate referrals, using a toolkit to help operationalize exercise components, and allocating funding/resources to CRPs may significantly increase access to secondary prevention strategies.

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Persian version of the Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale (CRBS-P)

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to translate, cross-culturally adapt and psychometrically validate a Persian version of the Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale (CRBS-P) and to identify the main barriers in an Iranian setting.

SETTING

Afshar cardiac rehabilitation (CR) centre, affiliated with the Yazd University of Medical Sciences, in the centre of Iran.

DESIGN

This was a multimethod study, culminating in a cross-sectional survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Inpatient CR graduates who did not attend their initial outpatient CR appointment.

METHOD

The 21-item CRBS was translated and cross-culturally adapted in accordance with best practices; an expert panel considered the items and previous non-attending patients were interviewed via phone to refine the scale. Next, structural validity was assessed; participants were invited to complete the CRBS on the phone between March 2017 and February 2018. Using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principal component analysis extraction and oblique rotation. Second, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to verify the results; several goodness-of-fit indices were considered. The internal consistency and 3-week test-retest reliability of the scale (5% subsample) were evaluated using Cronbach's α and intraclass correlation (ICC), respectively.

RESULTS

Face, content and cross-cultural validity were established by the experts and patients (n=50). One thousand and one hundred (40.7%) of the 2700 patients completed the CRBS-P. Structural validity was established by EFA (Bartlett's test p<0.001; =0.759) and confirmed by the CFA; a four-factor solution with 18 items accounting for 61.256% of variance had the best fit (χ²/df=3.206, root mean square error of approximation=0.061 and Comparative Fit Index=0.959). The internal consistency and test-retest reliability (n=42) of the scale were acceptable (ICC=0.743 95% CI (0.502 to 0.868); overall α=0.797). The top barriers were not knowing about CR, cost and lack of encouragement from physicians.

CONCLUSION

The four-factor, 18-item CRBS-P had good psychometric properties, and hence can be reliably and validly used to measure CR barriers in Iran and other Persian-speaking populations.

Subjective correlates of stress management in outpatient cardiac rehabilitation: the predictive role of perceived heart risk factors

Introduction: The causal attributions and perceived risk factors can affect patients’ health behaviors. Therefore, the present study aimed to assess (i) the effect of an outpatient cardiac rehabilitation (CR) program on perceived heart risk factors (PHRFs) and on psychological stress, and (ii) the role of changes of PHRFs at pre-post CR in predicting changes in psychological stress.

Methods: In this longitudinal study, 110 CR patients were assessed from June to November 2016 in a hospital in Iran. Perceived heart risk factors and perceived stress were investigated using the PHRFs scale and the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale-21, respectively. PHRFs and DASS-21 Stress scale scores were compared before and after 26 sessions of exercise-based CR through paired sample t-tests. In addition, we investigated the effect of PHRF’s change scores on DASS-21 Stress scale scores using linear regression analysis.

Results: Results showed that CR has a little impact in improving the patients’ perception of heart risk factors, However, CR is significantly effective in reducing stress (P < 0.05). Regression analysis evidenced that improvements in patients’ perception of risk factors can significantly predict a reduction in psychological stress (P = 0.030). The model explained 11.2% of the variance in the results.

Conclusion: PHRFs appear to be significant predictive components of CR’s stress reduction. Practitioners should focus on patients’ perception of risk factors to facilitate stress management in CR program.