OBJECTIVES: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) provides significant benefit for persons with cardiovascular disease. However, access to CR services may be limited by driving distance, costs, need for a driver, time away from work, or being a family primary caregiver. The primary aim of the project was to test the reach (i.e., patient and provider uptake), effectiveness (safety and clinical outcomes), and implementation (time and costs) of a remote telephone-based Phase 2 CR program. A secondary aim was to compare outcomes between patients attending the remote program (home-CR) and those attending an on-site program (comparison group). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Subjects were given a choice of the remote or face-to-face program. Remote CR participants (n=48) received education and assessment during 12 weekly by telephone calls. Data were compared with those for face-to-face CR program participants (n=14). Independent t tests and chi-squared tests were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Repeated-measures analysis of covariance models were used to assess differences in outcomes. Costs were analyzed using a cost-minimization analysis. RESULTS: Of 107 eligible patients, 45 refused participation, 5 dropped out, and 1 died unrelated to the study. Participants had a mean age of 64 (standard deviation 7.5) years. Remote CR participants were highly satisfied with their care and had a higher completion rate (89% of authorized sessions versus 73% of face-to-face). Costs for each program were comparable. There were no significant changes over time in any measured outcome between groups at 12 weeks except medication adherence, which decreased over time in both groups; face-to-face patients reported a greater decrease (p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to test a remote CR program in a population of older Veterans. Many hospitals do not provide comprehensive CR services on-site; thus remote CR is a viable alternative to bring services closer to the patient.
OBJECTIVES: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) provides significant benefit for persons with cardiovascular disease. However, access to CR services may be limited by driving distance, costs, need for a driver, time away from work, or being a family primary caregiver. The primary aim of the project was to test the reach (i.e., patient and provider uptake), effectiveness (safety and clinical outcomes), and implementation (time and costs) of a remote telephone-based Phase 2 CR program. A secondary aim was to compare outcomes between patients attending the remote program (home-CR) and those attending an on-site program (comparison group). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Subjects were given a choice of the remote or face-to-face program. Remote CR participants (n=48) received education and assessment during 12 weekly by telephone calls. Data were compared with those for face-to-face CR program participants (n=14). Independent t tests and chi-squared tests were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Repeated-measures analysis of covariance models were used to assess differences in outcomes. Costs were analyzed using a cost-minimization analysis. RESULTS: Of 107 eligible patients, 45 refused participation, 5 dropped out, and 1 died unrelated to the study. Participants had a mean age of 64 (standard deviation 7.5) years. Remote CR participants were highly satisfied with their care and had a higher completion rate (89% of authorized sessions versus 73% of face-to-face). Costs for each program were comparable. There were no significant changes over time in any measured outcome between groups at 12 weeks except medication adherence, which decreased over time in both groups; face-to-face patients reported a greater decrease (p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to test a remote CR program in a population of older Veterans. Many hospitals do not provide comprehensive CR services on-site; thus remote CR is a viable alternative to bring services closer to the patient.
Authors: Sidney C Smith; Emelia J Benjamin; Robert O Bonow; Lynne T Braun; Mark A Creager; Barry A Franklin; Raymond J Gibbons; Scott M Grundy; Loren F Hiratzka; Daniel W Jones; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Margo Minissian; Lori Mosca; Eric D Peterson; Ralph L Sacco; John Spertus; James H Stein; Kathryn A Taubert Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kate Jolly; Gregory Y H Lip; Josie Sandercock; Sheila M Greenfield; James P Raftery; Jonathan Mant; Rod Taylor; Deirdre Lane; Kaeng Wai Lee; A J Stevens Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2003-09-10 Impact factor: 2.298
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: 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 Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-05-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Hafiz M Imran; Muhammad Baig; Sebhat Erqou; Tracey H Taveira; Nishant R Shah; Alan Morrison; Gaurav Choudhary; Wen-Chih Wu Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-08-17 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Alexis L Beatty; Jacob A Doll; David W Schopfer; Charles Maynard; Mary E Plomondon; Hui Shen; Mary A Whooley Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 5.501