Kaisen Huang 1 , Wei Liu 1 , Dingxiu He 2 , Baotao Huang 1 , Dan Xiao 1 , Yong Peng 1 , Yong He 1 , Hongde Hu 1 , Mao Chen 1 , Dejia Huang 3 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an evidence-based recommendation for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, CR is dramatically underutilized. Telehealth interventions have the potential to overcome barriers and may be an innovative model of delivering CR. This review aimed to determine the effectiveness of telehealth intervention delivered CR compared with center-based supervised CR. METHOD: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library and the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM), were searched to April 2014, without language restriction. Existing randomized controlled trials, reviews, relevant conference lists and gray literature were checked. Randomized controlled trials that compared telehealth intervention delivered CR with traditional center-based supervised CR in adults with CAD were included. Two reviewers selected studies and extracted data independently. Main clinical outcomes including clinical events, modifiable risk factors or other endpoints were measured. RESULTS: Fifteen articles reporting nine trials were reviewed, most of which recruited patients with myocardial infarction or revascularization. No statistically significant difference was found between telehealth interventions delivered and center-based supervised CR in exercise capacity (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12-0.10), weight (SMD -0.13; 95% CI -0.30-0.05), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (mean difference (MD) -1.27; 95% CI -3.67-1.13 and MD 1.00; 95% CI -0.42-2.43, respectively), lipid profile, smoking (risk ratio (RR) 1.03; 95% CI 0.78-1.38), mortality (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.61-2.19), quality of life and psychosocial state. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth intervention delivered cardiac rehabilitation does not have significantly inferior outcomes compared to center-based supervised program in low to moderate risk CAD patients. Telehealth intervention offers an alternative deliver model of CR for individuals less able to access center-based cardiac rehabilitation. Choices should reflect preferences, anticipation, risk profile, funding, and accessibility to health service. © The European Society of Cardiology 2014.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an evidence-based recommendation for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, CR is dramatically underutilized. Telehealth interventions have the potential to overcome barriers and may be an innovative model of delivering CR. This review aimed to determine the effectiveness of telehealth intervention delivered CR compared with center-based supervised CR. METHOD: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library and the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM), were searched to April 2014, without language restriction. Existing randomized controlled trials, reviews, relevant conference lists and gray literature were checked. Randomized controlled trials that compared telehealth intervention delivered CR with traditional center-based supervised CR in adults with CAD were included. Two reviewers selected studies and extracted data independently. Main clinical outcomes including clinical events, modifiable risk factors or other endpoints were measured. RESULTS: Fifteen articles reporting nine trials were reviewed, most of which recruited patients with myocardial infarction or revascularization. No statistically significant difference was found between telehealth interventions delivered and center-based supervised CR in exercise capacity (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12-0.10), weight (SMD -0.13; 95% CI -0.30-0.05), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (mean difference (MD) -1.27; 95% CI -3.67-1.13 and MD 1.00; 95% CI -0.42-2.43, respectively), lipid profile, smoking (risk ratio (RR) 1 .03; 95% CI 0.78-1.38), mortality (RR 1 .15; 95% CI 0.61-2.19), quality of life and psychosocial state. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth intervention delivered cardiac rehabilitation does not have significantly inferior outcomes compared to center-based supervised program in low to moderate risk CAD patients . Telehealth intervention offers an alternative deliver model of CR for individuals less able to access center-based cardiac rehabilitation. Choices should reflect preferences, anticipation, risk profile, funding, and accessibility to health service. © The European Society of Cardiology 2014.
Entities: Disease
Gene
Species
Keywords:
Coronary artery disease; cardiac rehabilitation; secondary prevention; telehealth
Mesh： See more »
Substances： See more »
Year: 2014
PMID： 25488550 DOI： 10.1177/2047487314561168
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Prev Cardiol ISSN： 2047-4873 Impact factor: 7.804