A comparison of high versus low dose of exercise training in exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial with 12-months follow-up

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.

Effect of Cardiac Rehabilitation Therapy Combined with WeChat Platform Education on Patients with Unstable Angina Pectoris after PCI

Objective

The aim of this study is to explore the effect of cardiac rehabilitation therapy combined with WeChat platform education on patients with unstable angina pectoris (UAP) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

Eighty-eight UAP patients undergoing PCI in our hospital from June 2018 to June 2021 were chosen as the study subjects and were grouped according to the intervention methods. Specifically, patients receiving routine treatment only were included as the control group (CG) and those receiving cardiac rehabilitation therapy combined with WeChat platform education based on the routine treatment were included as the study group (SG), with 44 cases in each group. The clinical efficacy was compared between the two groups after intervention.

Results

Compared with CG, SG achieved notably better biochemical indexes of TC, TG, FBG, FIB, LDL-c, and HDL-c after 12 months of intervention (P < 0.05), lower systolic pressure (SBP), and diastolic pressure (DBP) after intervention (P < 0.05), and higher scores of limited mobility, anginal stability, anginal frequency, subjective perception, treatment satisfaction, and total SAQ after 12 months of intervention (P < 0.05). The LVEF levels of both groups increased after intervention (P < 0.05), and the LVEF level was higher in SG than in CG (P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse cardiac events such as heart failure, ventricular arrhythmia, and sudden cardiac death was slightly higher in CG than in SG within 12 months of intervention, with no statistical difference (P > 0.05). The UAP recurrence rate and incidence of myocardial infarction in CG were obviously higher than those in SG (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Cardiac rehabilitation therapy combined with WeChat platform education intervention measures for UAP patients after PCI can effectively control the biochemical indexes such as blood lipid and blood glucose, improve the cardiac function, stabilize the disease condition, lower the recurrence rate, and reduce the incidence of other cardiac adverse events.

A Model for the Prediction of Mortality and Hospitalization in Chinese Heart Failure Patients

Background: Although many risk prediction models have been released internationally, the application of these models in the Chinese population still has some limitations.

Aims: The purpose of the study was to establish a heart failure (HF) prognosis model suitable for the Chinese population.

Methods: According to the inclusion criteria, we included patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) who were admitted to the Department of Cardiac Rehabilitation of Tongji Hospital from March 2007 to December 2018, recorded each patient's condition and followed up on the patient's re-admission and death. All data sets were randomly divided into derivation and validation cohorts in a ratio of 7/3. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression and Cox regression were used to screen independent predictors; a nomogram chart scoring model was constructed and validated.

Results: A total of 547 patients were recruited in this cohort, and the median follow-up time was 519 days. The independent predictors screened out by the derivation cohort included age, atrial fibrillation (AF), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), diabetes mellitus (DM), peak oxygen uptake (peak VO₂), heart rate at the 8th minute after the cardiopulmonary exercise peaked (HR8min), C-reaction protein(CRP), and uric acid (UA). The C indexes values of the derivation and the validation cohorts were 0.69 and 0.62, respectively, and the calibration curves indicate that the model's predictions were in good agreement with the actual observations.

Conclusions: We have developed and validated a multiple Cox regression model to predict long-term mortality and readmission risk of Chinese patients with CHF.

Registration Number: ChicTR-TRC-00000235.

Feasibility of a high-PRotein Mediterranean-style diet and resistance Exercise in cardiac Rehabilitation patients with sarcopenic obesity (PRiMER): Study protocol for a randomised control trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an essential component of long-term recovery following a cardiac event. Typical CR may not be optimal for patients presenting with sarcopenic obesity (SO) who present with reduced muscle mass and elevated adipose tissue, and may indicate greater cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Resistance exercise and high-protein diets are known to increase muscle mass, while Mediterranean-style diets have been shown to reduce CVD risk. A high-protein Mediterranean-style diet combined with resistance exercise intervention is yet to be trialled in cardiac rehabilitation populations.

OBJECTIVES

Primary outcome: to determine the feasibility of such an intervention by investigating the perceptions, acceptance and adherence to a resistance exercise protocol and high-protein Mediterranean style diet in a UK cardiac rehabilitation population with SO. Secondary outcome: to trial this protocol ahead of a fully powered clinical study.

METHODS

Eligible cardiac rehabilitation patients will be randomised to one of the following: 1) a control group (standard CR), 2) high-protein Mediterranean-style diet, 3) resistance exercise group, or 4) both high-protein Mediterranean-style diet and resistance exercise group. The pilot study will last 12 weeks. Measures of body composition (dual energy x-ray absorptiometry) grip strength, CVD risk (e.g., fasting triglycerides, glucose, cholesterol) and dietary adherence will be assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks. To compare groups, a mixed model ANOVA (time x intervention) will be performed. Patient participant involvement throughout the development of this project will be used to determine the feasibility of a future, fully powered, randomised control trial. A feasibility questionnaire will help establish the proportion of eligible participants, their willingness to be randomised, response rates, and ethical considerations. Furthermore, focus groups, food tasting and telephone interviews will be conducted to assess the acceptability of recipes and exercise protocols provided.

DISCUSSION

This pilot trial will determine whether a fully powered, multi-centred randomised control trial in CR patients with SO can be implemented. The information received from patient involvement will be invaluable for identifying possible barriers to participation and tailoring interventions to participant needs, helping to increase the likelihood of long-term compliance to health-promoting lifestyle changes.

REGISTRATION

This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04272073), registered on 17/02/2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04272073.

DATE AND VERSION

28/12/20 version 3.0.