Rita Hwang1, Jared Bruning2, Norman R Morris3, Allison Mandrusiak4, Trevor Russell5. 1. Department of Physiotherapy, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Health, Brisbane; Physiotherapy, School of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane. 2. Department of Physiotherapy, Heart Failure Support Service, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane. 3. The Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast; The School of Allied Health Sciences, Griffith University, Gold Coast; Allied Health Research Collaborative, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane. 4. Physiotherapy, School of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane. 5. Physiotherapy, School of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane; Centre for Research Excellence in Telehealth, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
QUESTION: Is a 12-week, home-based telerehabilitation program conducted in small groups non-inferior to a traditional centre-based program in terms of the change in 6-minute walk distance? Is the telerehabilitation program also non-inferior to a centre-based program in terms of functional capacity, muscle strength, quality of life, urinary incontinence, patient satisfaction, attendance rates, and adverse events? DESIGN: Randomised, parallel, non-inferiority trial with concealed allocation, intention-to-treat analysis and assessor blinding. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with stable chronic heart failure (including heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction) were recruited from two tertiary hospitals in Brisbane, Australia. INTERVENTION: The experimental group received a 12-week, real-time exercise and education intervention delivered into the participant's home twice weekly, using online videoconferencing software. The control group received a traditional hospital outpatient-based program of the same duration and frequency. Both groups received similar exercise prescription. OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were assessed by independent assessors at baseline (Week 0), at the end of the intervention (Week 12) and at follow-up (Week 24). The primary outcome was a between-group comparison of the change in 6-minute walk distance, with a non-inferiority margin of 28m. Secondary outcomes included other functional measures, quality of life, patient satisfaction, program attendance rates and adverse events. RESULTS: In 53 participants (mean age 67 years, 75% males), there were no significant between-group differences on 6-minute walk distance gains, with a mean difference of 15m (95% CI -28 to 59) at Week 12. The confidence intervals were within the predetermined non-inferiority range. The secondary outcomes indicated that the experimental intervention was at least as effective as traditional rehabilitation. Significantly higher attendance rates were observed in the telerehabilitation group. CONCLUSION: Telerehabilitation was not inferior to a hospital outpatient-based rehabilitation program in patients with chronic heart failure. Telerehabilitation appears to be an appropriate alternative because it promotes greater attendance at the rehabilitation sessions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12613000390785. [Hwang R, Bruning J, Morris NR, Mandrusiak A, Russell T (2017) Home-based telerehabilitation is not inferior to a centre-based program in patients with chronic heart failure: a randomised trial. Journal of Physiotherapy 63: 101-107]. Crown
RCT Entities:
QUESTION: Is a 12-week, home-based telerehabilitation program conducted in small groups non-inferior to a traditional centre-based program in terms of the change in 6-minute walk distance? Is the telerehabilitation program also non-inferior to a centre-based program in terms of functional capacity, muscle strength, quality of life, urinary incontinence, patient satisfaction, attendance rates, and adverse events? DESIGN: Randomised, parallel, non-inferiority trial with concealed allocation, intention-to-treat analysis and assessor blinding. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with stable chronic heart failure (including heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction) were recruited from two tertiary hospitals in Brisbane, Australia. INTERVENTION: The experimental group received a 12-week, real-time exercise and education intervention delivered into the participant's home twice weekly, using online videoconferencing software. The control group received a traditional hospital outpatient-based program of the same duration and frequency. Both groups received similar exercise prescription. OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were assessed by independent assessors at baseline (Week 0), at the end of the intervention (Week 12) and at follow-up (Week 24). The primary outcome was a between-group comparison of the change in 6-minute walk distance, with a non-inferiority margin of 28m. Secondary outcomes included other functional measures, quality of life, patient satisfaction, program attendance rates and adverse events. RESULTS: In 53 participants (mean age 67 years, 75% males), there were no significant between-group differences on 6-minute walk distance gains, with a mean difference of 15m (95% CI -28 to 59) at Week 12. The confidence intervals were within the predetermined non-inferiority range. The secondary outcomes indicated that the experimental intervention was at least as effective as traditional rehabilitation. Significantly higher attendance rates were observed in the telerehabilitation group. CONCLUSION: Telerehabilitation was not inferior to a hospital outpatient-based rehabilitation program in patients with chronic heart failure. Telerehabilitation appears to be an appropriate alternative because it promotes greater attendance at the rehabilitation sessions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12613000390785. [Hwang R, Bruning J, Morris NR, Mandrusiak A, Russell T (2017) Home-based telerehabilitation is not inferior to a centre-based program in patients with chronic heart failure: a randomised trial. Journal of Physiotherapy 63: 101-107]. Crown
Authors: Michael Gruska; Gerhard Aigner; Johann Altenberger; Dagmar Burkart-Küttner; Lukas Fiedler; Marianne Gwechenberger; Peter Lercher; Martin Martinek; Michael Nürnberg; Gerhard Pölzl; Gerold Porenta; Stefan Sauermann; Christoph Schukro; Daniel Scherr; Clemens Steinwender; Markus Stühlinger; Alexander Teubl Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Allison M Gustavson; Michelle R Rauzi; Molly J Lahn; Hillari S N Olson; Melissa Ludescher; Stephanie Bazal; Elizabeth Roddy; Christine Interrante; Estee Berg; Jennifer P Wisdom; Howard A Fink Journal: Int J Telerehabil Date: 2021-06-22
Authors: Carolina Santiago de Araújo Pio; Gabriela Ss Chaves; Philippa Davies; Rod S Taylor; Sherry L Grace Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-02-01