BACKGROUND: Large numbers of patients who stand to benefit from the exercise training component of cardiac rehabilitation are not being served due to access issues. Home-based exercise training may be a potentially useful alternative to training in institutional environments. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the benefit of 6 months of hospital-based exercise training versus 6 months of monitored, home-based exercise training with respect to physical, quality of life, and social support outcomes in patients after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial of "direct-to-home" (Home; = 120) versus "direct-to-hospital" (Hosp; = 122) exercise training, 35-49 d post CABG surgery. The primary outcome was peak exercise capacity, measured by peak oxygen consumption (VO(2)) on a symptom-limited cycle ergometer exercise test. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (measured by the SF-36) and social support (measured by the ISEL). Measurements were taken at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of exercise training. RESULTS: The study groups had similar demographic and health profiles at baseline. Peak VO(2) improved significantly in both groups after 6 months of exercise training; 36% in the Hosp group (1,222.1 +/- 269.0 mL x min(-1) to 1,497.2 +/- 594.3 mL x min(-1); < 0.0001) and 31% in the Home group (1,260.3 +/- 306.5 mL x min(-1) to 1,433.4 +/- 589.7 mL x min(-1); < 0.05). The Home group reported greater total social support than the Hosp group at 3 (36.2 +/- 4.5 vs 34.0 +/- 6.7; < 0.0001) and 6 months (36.0 +/- 4.9 vs 34.6 +/- 6.4; = 0.05). The Home group demonstrated a greater improvement in health-related quality of life (physical) by 6 months in comparison to the Hosp patients (51.2 +/- 6.4 vs 48.6 +/- 7.1; = 0.004). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that low-risk CABG surgery patients may be served as well or better with a monitored, home-based exercise program than with an institution-based program.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Large numbers of patients who stand to benefit from the exercise training component of cardiac rehabilitation are not being served due to access issues. Home-based exercise training may be a potentially useful alternative to training in institutional environments. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the benefit of 6 months of hospital-based exercise training versus 6 months of monitored, home-based exercise training with respect to physical, quality of life, and social support outcomes in patients after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial of "direct-to-home" (Home; = 120) versus "direct-to-hospital" (Hosp; = 122) exercise training, 35-49 d post CABG surgery. The primary outcome was peak exercise capacity, measured by peak oxygen consumption (VO(2)) on a symptom-limited cycle ergometer exercise test. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (measured by the SF-36) and social support (measured by the ISEL). Measurements were taken at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of exercise training. RESULTS: The study groups had similar demographic and health profiles at baseline. Peak VO(2) improved significantly in both groups after 6 months of exercise training; 36% in the Hosp group (1,222.1 +/- 269.0 mL x min(-1) to 1,497.2 +/- 594.3 mL x min(-1); < 0.0001) and 31% in the Home group (1,260.3 +/- 306.5 mL x min(-1) to 1,433.4 +/- 589.7 mL x min(-1); < 0.05). The Home group reported greater total social support than the Hosp group at 3 (36.2 +/- 4.5 vs 34.0 +/- 6.7; < 0.0001) and 6 months (36.0 +/- 4.9 vs 34.6 +/- 6.4; = 0.05). The Home group demonstrated a greater improvement in health-related quality of life (physical) by 6 months in comparison to the Hosp patients (51.2 +/- 6.4 vs 48.6 +/- 7.1; = 0.004). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that low-risk CABG surgery patients may be served as well or better with a monitored, home-based exercise program than with an institution-based program.
Authors: Chris Blanchard; Daniel Rainham; Jill McSweeney; John Spence; Lisa McDonnell; Ryan Rhodes; Robert Reid; Kerry McGannon; Nancy Edwards Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Randal J Thomas; Alexis L Beatty; Theresa M Beckie; LaPrincess C Brewer; Todd M Brown; Daniel E Forman; Barry A Franklin; Steven J Keteyian; Dalane W Kitzman; Judith G Regensteiner; Bonnie K Sanderson; Mary A Whooley Journal: J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.081
Authors: Bernice C Yates; Joseph Norman; Jane Meza; Kaye Stanek Krogstrand; Susana Harrington; Scott Shurmur; Matthew Johnson; Karen Schumacher Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2015 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.083