Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation: abridged Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Objective

To update the Cochrane review comparing the effects of home-based and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on mortality and morbidity, quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease.

Methods

Systematic review and meta-analysis. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched up to October 2014, without language restriction. Randomised trials comparing home-based and centre-based CR programmes in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure or who had undergone coronary revascularisation were included.

Results

17 studies with 2172 patients were included. No difference was seen between home-based and centre-based CR in terms of: mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.47); cardiac events; exercise capacity (mean difference (MD) −0.10, −0.29 to 0.08); total cholesterol (MD 0.07 mmol/L, −0.24 to 0.11); low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD −0.06 mmol/L, −0.27 to 0.15); triglycerides (MD −0.16 mmol/L, −0.38 to 0.07); systolic blood pressure (MD 0.2 mm Hg, −3.4 to 3.8); smoking (RR 0.98, 0.79 to 1.21); health-related quality of life and healthcare costs. Lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD −0.07 mmol/L, −0.11 to −0.03, p=0.001) and lower diastolic blood pressure (MD −1.9 mm Hg, −0.8 to −3.0, p=0.009) were observed in centre-based participants. Home-based CR was associated with slightly higher adherence (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07).

Conclusions

Home-based and centre-based CR provide similar benefits in terms of clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes at equivalent cost for those with heart failure and following myocardial infarction and revascularisation.

Related collections

Most cited references 38

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Home based versus centre based cardiac rehabilitation: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

Hasnain Dalal, Anna Zawada, Kate Jolly … (2010)

Objective To compare the effect of home based and supervised centre based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with coronary heart disease. Design Systematic review. Data sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, without language restriction, searched from 2001 to January 2008. Review methods Reference lists checked and advice sought from authors. Included randomised controlled trials that compared centre based cardiac rehabilitation with home based programmes in adults with acute myocardial infarction, angina, or heart failure or who had undergone coronary revascularisation. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of the identified trials and extracted data independently. Authors were contacted when possible to obtain missing information. Results 12 studies (1938 participants) were included. Most studies recruited patients with a low risk of further events after myocardial infarction or revascularisation. No difference was seen between home based and centre based cardiac rehabilitation in terms of mortality (relative risk 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 2.66), cardiac events, exercise capacity (standardised mean difference −0.11, −0.35 to 0.13), modifiable risk factors (weighted mean difference systolic blood pressure (0.58 mm Hg, −3.29 mm Hg to 4.44 mm Hg), total cholesterol (−0.13 mmol/l, −0.31 mmol/l to 0.05 mmol/l), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (−0.15 mmol/l, −0.31 mmol/l to 0.01 mmol/l), or relative risk for proportion of smokers at follow-up (0.98, 0.73 to 1.31)), or health related quality of life, with the exception of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (−0.06, −0.11 to −0.02) mmol/l). In the home based participants, there was evidence of superior adherence. No consistent difference was seen in the healthcare costs of the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation. Conclusions Home and centre based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be equally effective in improving clinical and health related quality of life outcomes in patients with a low risk of further events after myocardial infarction or revascularisation. This finding, together with the absence of evidence of differences in patients’ adherence and healthcare costs between the two approaches, supports the further provision of evidence based, home based cardiac rehabilitation programmes such as the “Heart Manual.” The choice of participating in a more traditional supervised centre based or evidence based home based programme should reflect the preference of the individual patient.

0 comments Cited 123 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A new model of home-based telemonitored cardiac rehabilitation in patients with heart failure: effectiveness, quality of life, and adherence.

Mariusz Kłopotowski, Jerzy Korewicki, Maria Bilińska … (2010)

Despite proven benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), currently proposed CR models are not acceptable for many heart failure (HF) patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a new model of home-based telemonitored cardiac rehabilitation (HTCR) using walking training compared with an outpatient-based standard cardiac rehabilitation (SCR) using interval training on a cycle ergometer. The study included 152 HF patients (aged 58.1 + or - 10.2 years, NYHA class II and III, ejection fraction < or = 40%) who were randomized to HTCR (n = 77) or SCR (n = 75). All patients underwent 8 weeks of CR. Both groups were comparable in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics and medical therapy. The effectiveness of CR was assessed by changes in NYHA class, peak oxygen consumption, 6-min walking test distance, and SF-36 score. Cardiac rehabilitation resulted in a significant improvement of all parameters in both groups. All patients in the HTCR group completed the 8 weeks of CR, whereas 15 patients in the SCR group (20%) discontinued CR. In patients with HF, HTCR is equally as effective as SCR and provides a similar improvement in quality of life. Adherence to CR seems to be better for HTCR. Home-based telemonitored cardiac rehabilitation may be a useful alternative form of CR in patients with HF.

0 comments Cited 69 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Improved exercise tolerance and quality of life with cardiac rehabilitation of older patients after myocardial infarction: results of a randomized, controlled trial.

Giulio Masotti, Niccolò Marchionni, Francesco Fattirolli … (2003)

Whether cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is effective in patients older than 75 years, who have been excluded from most trials, remains unclear. We enrolled patients 46 to 86 years old in a randomized trial and assessed the effects of 2 months of post-myocardial infarction (MI) CR on total work capacity (TWC, in kilograms per meter) and health-related quality of life (HRQL). Of 773 screened patients, 270 without cardiac failure, dementia, disability, or contraindications to exercise were randomized to outpatient, hospital-based CR (Hosp-CR), home-based CR (Home-CR), or no CR within 3 predefined age groups (middle-aged, 45 to 65 years; old, 66 to 75 years; and very old, >75 years) of 90 patients each. TWC and HRQL were determined with cycle ergometry and Sickness Impact Profile at baseline, after CR, and 6 and 12 months later. Within each age group, TWC improved with Hosp-CR and Home-CR and was unchanged with no CR. The improvement was similar in middle-aged and old persons but smaller, although still significant, in very old patients. TWC reverted toward baseline by 12 months with Hosp-CR but not with Home-CR. HRQL improved in middle-aged and old CR and control patients but only with CR in very old patients. Complications were similar across treatment and age groups. Costs were lower for Home-CR than for Hosp-CR. Post-MI Hosp-CR and Home-CR are similarly effective in the short term and improve TWC and HRQL in each age group. However, with lower costs and more prolonged positive effects, Home-CR may be the treatment of choice in low-risk older patients.

0 comments Cited 66 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Open Heart

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Open Heart

Journal ID (hwp): openhrt

Journal ID (publisher-id): openheart

Title: Open Heart

Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )

ISSN (Electronic): 2053-3624

Publication date Collection: 2016

Publication date (Electronic): 14 September 2016

Volume: 3

Issue: 2

Electronic Location Identifier: e000463

Affiliations

[1 ]Department of Research, Development & Innovation, Royal Cornwall, Hospitals NHS Trust , Truro, UK

[2 ]Institute of Health Research (Primary Care), University of Exeter Medical School , Exeter, Devon, UK

[3 ]Institute for Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham , Birmingham, UK

[4 ]Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Tariff System , Warsaw, Poland

[5 ]Cardiac Rehabilitation, University Hospital Ayr , Ayr, UK

[6 ]Institute of Bioengineering, School of Engineering and Materials Science, Queen Mary University of London , London, UK

Author notes

Paper based on: Taylor RS, Dalal H, Jolly K, et al. Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(8):CD007130.

[Correspondence to ] Professor RS Taylor; r.taylor@ 123456exeter.ac.uk

Article

Publisher ID: openhrt-2016-000463

DOI: 10.1136/openhrt-2016-000463

PMC ID: 5030549

PubMed ID: 27738516

SO-VID: a97930ca-9480-496b-b2f3-d312eb5b1f17

Copyright © Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

License:

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

History

Date received : 28 April 2016

Date revision received : 24 June 2016

Date accepted : 19 July 2016

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 56

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 1,750

See all reference authors

- Version 1
- Version 1

Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation: abridged Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

Read this article at

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Related collections

Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications

Most cited references 38

Home based versus centre based cardiac rehabilitation: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

A new model of home-based telemonitored cardiac rehabilitation in patients with heart failure: effectiveness, quality of life, and adherence.

Improved exercise tolerance and quality of life with cardiac rehabilitation of older patients after myocardial infarction: results of a randomized, controlled trial.

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 109

Cited by 56

Most referenced authors 1,750