Ewa Piotrowicz1, Michael J Pencina2,3, Grzegorz Opolski4, Wojciech Zareba5, Maciej Banach6, Ilona Kowalik7, Piotr Orzechowski1, Dominika Szalewska8, Slawomir Pluta9, Renata Glówczynska4, Robert Irzmanski10, Artur Oreziak11, Zbigniew Kalarus9, Ewa Lewicka12, Andrzej Cacko13, Anna Mierzynska14, Ryszard Piotrowicz14. 1. Telecardiology Center, Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland. 2. Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Deputy Editor for Statistics, JAMA Cardiology. 4. Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. 5. University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York. 6. Department of Hypertension, Medical University of Łódź, Łódź, Poland. 7. Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland. 8. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland. 9. Department of Cardiology, Congenital Heart Diseases and Electrotherapy, Silesian Center for Heart Diseases, Silesian Medical University, Zabrze, Poland. 10. Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiac Rehabilitation, Medical University of Łódź, Łódź, Poland. 11. Department of Arrhythmia, Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland. 12. Department of Cardiology and Electrotherapy, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland. 13. Department of Medical Informatics and Telemedicine, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. 14. Department of Cardiac Rehabilitation and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland.
Abstract
Importance: Guidelines recommend exercise training as a component of heart failure management. There are large disparities in access to rehabilitation, and introducing hybrid comprehensive telerehabilitation (HCTR) consisting of remote monitoring of training at patients' homes might be an appealing alternative. Objective: To assess whether potential improvements in quality-of-life outcomes after a 9-week HCTR intervention in patients with heart failure translate into improvement in clinical outcomes during extended 12 to 24 months of follow-up, compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Telerehabilitation in Heart Failure Patients (TELEREH-HF) trial is a multicenter, prospective, open-label, parallel-group randomized clinical trial that enrolled 850 patients with heart failure up to 6 months after a cardiovascular hospitalization with New York Heart Association levels I, II, or III and left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less. Patients from 5 centers in Poland were randomized 1:1 to HCTR plus usual care or usual care only and followed up for 14 to 26 months after randomization. Interventions: During the first 9 weeks, patients underwent either an HCTR program (1 week in hospital and 8 weeks at home) or usual care with observation. The HCTR intervention encompassed telecare, telerehabilitation, and remote monitoring of implantable devices. No intervention occurred in the remaining study period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The percentage of days alive and out of the hospital from randomization through the end of follow-up at 14 to 26 months. Results: A total of 850 patients were enrolled, with 425 randomized to the HCTR group (377 male patients [88.7%]; mean [SD] age, 62.6 [10.8] years) and 425 randomized to usual care (376 male patients [88.5%]; mean [SD] age, 62.2 [10.2] years). The HCTR intervention did not extend the percentage of days alive and out of the hospital. The mean (SD) days were 91.9 (19.3) days in the HCTR group vs 92.8 (18.3) days in the usual-care group, with the probability that HCTR extends days alive and out of the hospital equal to 0.49 (95% CI, 0.46-0.53; P = .74) vs usual care. During follow-up, 54 patients died in the HCTR arm and 52 in the usual-care arm, with mortality rates at 26 months of 12.5% vs 12.4%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.70-1.51]). There were also no differences in hospitalization rates (hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.79-1.13]). The HCTR intervention was effective at 9 weeks, significantly improving peak oxygen consumption (0.95 [95% CI, 0.65-1.26] mL/kg/min vs 0.00 [95% CI, -0.31 to 0.30] mL/kg/min; P < .001) and quality of life (Medical Outcome SurveyShort Form-36 questionnaire score, 1.58 [95% CI, 0.74-2.42] vs 0.00 [95% CI, -0.84 to 0.84]; P = .008), and it was well tolerated, with no serious adverse events during exercise. Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, the positive effects of a 9-week program of HCTR in patients with heart failure did not lead to the increase in percentage of days alive and out of the hospital and did not reduce mortality and hospitalization over a follow-up period of 14 to 26 months. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02523560.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Guidelines recommend exercise training as a component of heart failure management. There are large disparities in access to rehabilitation, and introducing hybrid comprehensive telerehabilitation (HCTR) consisting of remote monitoring of training at patients' homes might be an appealing alternative. Objective: To assess whether potential improvements in quality-of-life outcomes after a 9-week HCTR intervention in patients with heart failure translate into improvement in clinical outcomes during extended 12 to 24 months of follow-up, compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Telerehabilitation in Heart FailurePatients (TELEREH-HF) trial is a multicenter, prospective, open-label, parallel-group randomized clinical trial that enrolled 850 patients with heart failure up to 6 months after a cardiovascular hospitalization with New York Heart Association levels I, II, or III and left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less. Patients from 5 centers in Poland were randomized 1:1 to HCTR plus usual care or usual care only and followed up for 14 to 26 months after randomization. Interventions: During the first 9 weeks, patients underwent either an HCTR program (1 week in hospital and 8 weeks at home) or usual care with observation. The HCTR intervention encompassed telecare, telerehabilitation, and remote monitoring of implantable devices. No intervention occurred in the remaining study period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The percentage of days alive and out of the hospital from randomization through the end of follow-up at 14 to 26 months. Results: A total of 850 patients were enrolled, with 425 randomized to the HCTR group (377 male patients [88.7%]; mean [SD] age, 62.6 [10.8] years) and 425 randomized to usual care (376 male patients [88.5%]; mean [SD] age, 62.2 [10.2] years). The HCTR intervention did not extend the percentage of days alive and out of the hospital. The mean (SD) days were 91.9 (19.3) days in the HCTR group vs 92.8 (18.3) days in the usual-care group, with the probability that HCTR extends days alive and out of the hospital equal to 0.49 (95% CI, 0.46-0.53; P = .74) vs usual care. During follow-up, 54 patientsdied in the HCTR arm and 52 in the usual-care arm, with mortality rates at 26 months of 12.5% vs 12.4%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.70-1.51]). There were also no differences in hospitalization rates (hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.79-1.13]). The HCTR intervention was effective at 9 weeks, significantly improving peak oxygen consumption (0.95 [95% CI, 0.65-1.26] mL/kg/min vs 0.00 [95% CI, -0.31 to 0.30] mL/kg/min; P < .001) and quality of life (Medical Outcome Survey Short Form-36 questionnaire score, 1.58 [95% CI, 0.74-2.42] vs 0.00 [95% CI, -0.84 to 0.84]; P = .008), and it was well tolerated, with no serious adverse events during exercise. Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, the positive effects of a 9-week program of HCTR in patients with heart failure did not lead to the increase in percentage of days alive and out of the hospital and did not reduce mortality and hospitalization over a follow-up period of 14 to 26 months. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02523560.
Authors: Niraj Varma; Iwona Cygankiewicz; Mintu P Turakhia; Hein Heidbuchel; Yu-Feng Hu; Lin Yee Chen; Jean-Philippe Couderc; Edmond M Cronin; Jerry D Estep; Lars Grieten; Deirdre A Lane; Reena Mehra; Alex Page; Rod Passman; Jonathan P Piccini; Ewa Piotrowicz; Ryszard Piotrowicz; Pyotr G Platonov; Antonio Luiz Ribeiro; Robert E Rich; Andrea M Russo; David Slotwiner; Jonathan S Steinberg; Emma Svennberg Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2021-02-12
Authors: Niraj Varma; Iwona Cygankiewicz; Mintu P Turakhia; Hein Heidbuchel; Yufeng Hu; Lin Yee Chen; Jean-Philippe Couderc; Edmond M Cronin; Jerry D Estep; Lars Grieten; Deirdre A Lane; Reena Mehra; Alex Page; Rod Passman; Jonathan P Piccini; Ewa Piotrowicz; Ryszard Piotrowicz; Pyotr G Platonov; Antonio Luiz Ribeiro; Robert E Rich; Andrea M Russo; David Slotwiner; Jonathan S Steinberg; Emma Svennberg Journal: Cardiovasc Digit Health J Date: 2021-01-29
Authors: Beatriz Carpallo-Porcar; Laura Romo-Calvo; Sara Pérez-Palomares; Carolina Jiménez-Sánchez; Pablo Herrero; Natalia Brandín-de la Cruz; Sandra Calvo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Renata Główczyńska; Ewa Piotrowicz; Dominika Szalewska; Ryszard Piotrowicz; Ilona Kowalik; Michael J Pencina; Wojciech Zaręba; Maciej Banach; Piotr Orzechowski; Sławomir Pluta; Robert Irzmański; Zbigniew Kalarus; Grzegorz Opolski Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 9.951
Authors: Randal J Thomas; Cara E Petersen; Thomas P Olson; Alexis L Beatty; Rongjing Ding; Marta Supervia Journal: J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 3.646
Authors: Sławomir Pluta; Ewa Piotrowicz; Ryszard Piotrowicz; Ewa Lewicka; Wojciech Zaręba; Monika Kozieł; Ilona Kowalik; Michael J Pencina; Artur Oręziak; Andrzej Cacko; Dominika Szalewska; Renata Główczyńska; Maciej Banach; Grzegorz Opolski; Piotr Orzechowski; Robert Irzmański; Zbigniew Kalarus Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Sonu Bhaskar; Sian Bradley; Vijay Kumar Chattu; Anil Adisesh; Alma Nurtazina; Saltanat Kyrykbayeva; Sateesh Sakhamuri; Sebastian Moguilner; Shawna Pandya; Starr Schroeder; Maciej Banach; Daniel Ray Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2020-09-07