Randal J Thomas1, Cara E Petersen, Thomas P Olson, Alexis L Beatty, Rongjing Ding, Marta Supervia. 1. Cardiac Rehabilitation Program, Division of Preventive Cardiology, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (Drs Thomas and Olson and Ms Petersen); Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah (Ms Petersen); Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Department of Medicine (Cardiology), University of California, San Francisco (Dr Beatty); Department of Cardiology, Peiking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China (Dr Ding); and Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Gregorio Marañón Health Research Institute, Madrid, Spain (Dr Supervia).
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the principles, advantages, and disadvantages of asynchronous and synchronous delivery models of home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR). METHODS: We reviewed recently published systematic reviews and other publications of randomized studies of asynchronous and synchronous HBCR to assess principles, outcomes, and limitations of those delivery methods compared with center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR). SUMMARY: While most studies prior to 2016 involved asynchronous HBCR approaches to care, studies since 2016 have included asynchronous or synchronous delivery models. Both delivery models have been shown to help provide core components of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Studies using either method have been shown to have similar short-term patient outcomes as CBCR, at least in low- to moderate-risk patients who have been studied. Asynchronous HBCR offers greater flexibility for patients and CR staff, while synchronous HBCR provides greater real-time oversight and feedback to patients.Asynchronous and synchronous HBCR is an option to consider for patients eligible for CR. Additional research is needed for both delivery models, applied separately or in combination, to compare their impact on shorter- and longer-term patient outcomes and to assess their impact in patient subgroups (referral diagnosis, women, elderly, underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups, patients at a higher cardiovascular disease risk, patients with multiple comorbid conditions, etc).
PURPOSE: To review the principles, advantages, and disadvantages of asynchronous and synchronous delivery models of home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR). METHODS: We reviewed recently published systematic reviews and other publications of randomized studies of asynchronous and synchronous HBCR to assess principles, outcomes, and limitations of those delivery methods compared with center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR). SUMMARY: While most studies prior to 2016 involved asynchronous HBCR approaches to care, studies since 2016 have included asynchronous or synchronous delivery models. Both delivery models have been shown to help provide core components of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Studies using either method have been shown to have similar short-term patient outcomes as CBCR, at least in low- to moderate-risk patients who have been studied. Asynchronous HBCR offers greater flexibility for patients and CR staff, while synchronous HBCR provides greater real-time oversight and feedback to patients.Asynchronous and synchronous HBCR is an option to consider for patients eligible for CR. Additional research is needed for both delivery models, applied separately or in combination, to compare their impact on shorter- and longer-term patient outcomes and to assess their impact in patient subgroups (referral diagnosis, women, elderly, underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups, patients at a higher cardiovascular disease risk, patients with multiple comorbid conditions, etc).
Authors: Alexis L Beatty; Michael Truong; David W Schopfer; Hui Shen; Justin M Bachmann; Mary A Whooley Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Patrick T O'Gara; Frederick G Kushner; Deborah D Ascheim; Donald E Casey; Mina K Chung; James A de Lemos; Steven M Ettinger; James C Fang; Francis M Fesmire; Barry A Franklin; Christopher B Granger; Harlan M Krumholz; Jane A Linderbaum; David A Morrow; L Kristin Newby; Joseph P Ornato; Narith Ou; Martha J Radford; Jacqueline E Tamis-Holland; Carl L Tommaso; Cynthia M Tracy; Y Joseph Woo; David X Zhao; Jeffrey L Anderson; Alice K Jacobs; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Ralph G Brindis; Mark A Creager; David DeMets; Robert A Guyton; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; Frederick G Kushner; E Magnus Ohman; William G Stevenson; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kariann R Drwal; Bonnie J Wakefield; Daniel E Forman; Wen-Chih Wu; Bjarni Haraldsson; Ramzi N El Accaoui Journal: J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 2.081
Authors: Randal J Thomas; Gary Balady; Gaurav Banka; Theresa M Beckie; Jensen Chiu; Sana Gokak; P Michael Ho; Steven J Keteyian; Marjorie King; Karen Lui; Quinn Pack; Bonnie K Sanderson; Tracy Y Wang Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Gary J Balady; Mark A Williams; Philip A Ades; Vera Bittner; Patricia Comoss; Jo Anne M Foody; Barry Franklin; Bonnie Sanderson; Douglas Southard Journal: J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev Date: 2007 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.081
Authors: Jennifer Wingham; Julia Frost; Nicky Britten; Colin Greaves; Charles Abraham; Fiona C Warren; Kate Jolly; Jackie Miles; Kevin Paul; Patrick J Doherty; Sally Singh; Russell Davies; Miriam Noonan; Hasnain Dalal; Rod S Taylor Journal: Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 3.908
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
Authors: David W Schopfer; Mary A Whooley; Kelly Allsup; Mark Pabst; Hui Shen; Gary Tarasovsky; Claire S Duvernoy; Daniel E Forman Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 5.501