An Evaluation of FrancoForme: A CASE-MANAGED HOME-BASED PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PREVENTION PROGRAM FOR FRENCH-SPEAKING CANADIANS

Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based and technology-supported cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation, especially during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009, 2015, and 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of home-based (which may include digital/telehealth interventions) and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, exercise-capacity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) on 16 September 2022. We also searched two clinical trials registers as well as previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, sports/community centre) with home-based programmes (± digital/telehealth platforms) in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure, or who had undergone revascularisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on predefined inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third review author. Two authors independently extracted outcome data and study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three new trials in this update, bringing a total of 24 trials that have randomised a total of 3046 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. A further nine studies were identified and are awaiting classification. Manual searching of trial registers until 16 September 2022 revealed a further 14 clinical trial registrations - these are ongoing. Participants had a history of acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation, or heart failure. Although there was little evidence of high risk of bias, a number of studies provided insufficient detail to enable assessment of potential risk of bias; in particular, details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequencing and blinding of outcome assessment were poorly reported. No evidence of a difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in our primary outcomes up to 12 months of follow-up: total mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65 to 2.16; participants = 1647; studies = 12/comparisons = 14; low-certainty evidence) or exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.10, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.04; participants = 2343; studies = 24/comparisons = 28; low-certainty evidence). The majority of evidence (N=71 / 77 comparisons of either total or domain scores) showed no significant difference in health-related quality of life up to 24 months follow-up between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Trials were generally of short duration, with only three studies reporting outcomes beyond 12 months (exercise capacity: SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.23; participants = 1074; studies = 3; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a similar level of trial completion (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.08; participants = 2638; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low-certainty evidence) between home-based and centre-based participants. The cost per patient of centre- and home-based programmes was similar.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update supports previous conclusions that home- (± digital/telehealth platforms) and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation formally supported by healthcare staff seem to be similarly effective in improving clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction, or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding supports the continued expansion of healthcare professional supervised home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes (± digital/telehealth platforms), especially important in the context of the ongoing global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic that has much limited patients in face-to-face access of hospital and community health services. Where settings are able to provide both supervised centre- and home-based programmes, consideration of the preference of the individual patient would seem appropriate. Although not included in the scope of this review, there is an increasing evidence base supporting the use of hybrid models that combine elements of both centre-based and home-based cardiac rehabilitation delivery. Further data are needed to determine: (1) whether the short-term effects of home/digital-telehealth and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation models of delivery can be confirmed in the longer term; (2) the relative clinical effectiveness and safety of home-based programmes for other heart patients, e.g. post-valve surgery and atrial fibrillation.

Sex differences in physical and mental health following high-intensity interval training in adults with cardiovascular disease who completed cardiac rehabilitation

This pre-post study examined sex-differences in peak aerobic power (V̇O2peak) and physical- and mental-health outcomes in adults with cardiovascular disease who completed high-intensity interval training (HIIT)-based cardiac rehabilitation. HIIT consisted of 25 minutes of alternating higher- (4×4 minutes 85-95% heart rate peak (HRpeak)) and lower- (3×3 minutes 60-70% HRpeak) intensity intervals twice weekly for 10 weeks. V̇O2peak estimated from a graded exercise test using the American College of Sports Medicine equation, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, blood pressure, blood biomarkers and anxiety and depression were assessed at baseline and follow-up. Linear mixed-effects models for repeated measures were performed to examine differences over time between sexes. Of 140 participants (mean ± standard deviation: 58 ± 9 years), 40 were female. Improvements in V̇O2peak did not differ between sexes (interaction: p = 0.273, females: 28.4 ± 6.4 to 30.9 ± 7.6; males: 34.3 ± 6.3 to 37.4 ± 6.0 mL/kg/min). None of the time by sex interactions were significant. Significant main effects of time showed reductions in waist circumference, triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), total cholesterol (TC)/high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and anxiety, and increases in V̇O2peak and HDL from baseline to follow-up. Significant main effects of sex revealed smaller V̇O2peak, BMI and waist circumference, and higher LDL, TC and HDL in females than males. HIIT led to similar improvements in estimated V̇O2peak (females: 8.8%, males: 9.0%) and additional health outcomes between sexes. Novelty: HIIT-based cardiac rehabilitation led to similar improvements in estimated V̇O2peak and other physical and mental health outcomes between sexes. The number of sessions attended was high (>70%) and did not differ by sex. Both sexes showed good compliance with the exercise protocol (HR target).

Lessons learned from community- and home-based physical activity programs: A narrative review of factors influencing women's participation in cardiac rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of death in women. Despite the well-known benefits of cardiac rehabilitation, it remains underutilized, especially among women. Physical activity programs in the community, however, attract a large female population, suggesting that they overcome barriers to physical activity encountered by women. The characteristics of interventions that extend beyond the traditional cardiac rehabilitation model and promote physical activity merit examination.

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review aimed to: (a) summarize women's barriers to attend cardiac rehabilitation; (b) examine the characteristics of community- and home-based physical activity or lifestyle coaching interventions; and (c) discuss which barriers may be addressed by these alternative programs.

METHODS

Studies were included if they: (a) were published within the past 10 years; (b) included ≥70% women with a mean age ≥45 years; (c) implemented a community- or home-based physical activity intervention or a lifestyle education/behavioral coaching program; and (d) aimed to improve physical activity levels or physical function.

RESULTS

Most interventions reported high (≥70%) participation rates and significant increases in physical activity levels at follow-up; some improved physical function and/or cardiovascular disease risk factors. Community- and home-based interventions address women's cardiac rehabilitation barriers by: implementing appealing modes of physical activity (e.g. dancing, group-walking, technology-based balance exercises); adapting the program to meet participants' needs; offering flexible options regarding timing and setting (e.g. closer to home, the workplace or faith-based institutions); and promoting social interactions.

CONCLUSION

Cardiac rehabilitation can be enhanced by understanding the specific needs of women; novel elements such as program offerings, convenient settings and opportunities for socialization should be considered when designing cardiac rehabilitation programs.