Literature DB >> 30251248

Hybrid versus traditional cardiac rehabilitation models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Congyin Wu1, Yan Li, Juan Chen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The common drawbacks of standard cardiac rehabilitation (CR) models include low participation rate, high cost, and dependence on on-site exercise sessions. Therefore, hybrid CR protocols have been developed. AIM: We aimed to test whether hybrid CR models are superior or equivalent to the traditional CR models in patients after myocardial infarction, heart failure, and cardiac surgery, using a meta-analysis framework.
METHODS: Data from relevant original studies indexed in the Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science data-bases were extracted and analysed. The standardised mean difference (SMD) was used as a summary effect estimate, along with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: Based on data from 1195 patients, the summary effect size showed similar improvement in functional capacity in hybrid and standard CR programmes (SMD = -0.04, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.09, p = 0.51). No significant difference was detected between the two models in terms of changes in exercise duration (SMD = -0.14, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.24, p = 0.47), systolic (SMD = -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.12, p = 0.91), and diastolic (SMD = -0.03, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.11, p = 0.7) blood pres-sure, or health-related quality of life (SMD = -0.08, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.07, p = 0.27). In terms of blood lipids, no significant difference was noted between hybrid and traditional CR models in all assessed lipid profile parameters, except for triglycerides (favouring the traditional CR model).
CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid CR protocols showed comparable efficacy to the traditional model. Further well-designed studies are required to validate these findings, especially regarding the long-term outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cardiac rehabilitation; functional capacity; hybrid; meta-analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30251248     DOI: 10.5603/KP.a2018.0175

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Kardiol Pol        ISSN: 0022-9032            Impact factor:   3.108


  4 in total

Review 1.  Cardiac Rehab in the COVID Era and Beyond: mHealth and Other Novel Opportunities.

Authors:  Elizabeth Epstein; Neeja Patel; Kathryn Maysent; Pam R Taub
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2021-03-11       Impact factor: 2.931

2.  Examining Facilitators and Barriers to Cardiac Rehabilitation Adherence in a Low-Resource Setting in Latin America from Multiple Perspectives.

Authors:  Diana Marcela Rangel-Cubillos; Andrea Vanessa Vega-Silva; Yully Fernanda Corzo-Vargas; Maria Camila Molano-Tordecilla; Yesica Paola Peñuela-Arévalo; Karen Mayerly Lagos-Peña; Adriana Marcela Jácome-Hortúa; Carmen Juliana Villamizar-Jaimes; Sherry L Grace; Hugo Celso Dutra de Souza; Adriana Angarita-Fonseca; Juan Carlos Sánchez-Delgado
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 3.390

3.  Evaluation of a Hybrid Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Program in Acute Coronary Syndrome Low-Risk Patients Organised in Both Cardiac Rehabilitation and Sport Centres: A Model Feasibility Study.

Authors:  Jean-Baptiste Meslet; Benoit Dugué; Ugo Brisset; Alain Pianeta; Sophie Kubas
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-08-02       Impact factor: 4.614

4.  Effect of home-based high-intensity interval training using telerehabilitation among coronary heart disease patients.

Authors:  Filip Dosbaba; Martin Hartman; Jakub Hnatiak; Ladislav Batalik; Ondrej Ludka
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 1.817

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.