Effect of cardiac telerehabilitation as standard care on quality of life

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – EU funding. Main funding source(s): EIT Health education grant. Background Cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) is a continuously developing cardiac rehabilitation (CR) format that might offer a solution to some of the challenges centre-based CR programs face. CR centres continue to face suboptimal participation in their provided CR program. The COVID-19 pandemic encouraged CR centres to implement their own CTR program to tackle practical challenges and to improve participation in CR. Multiple centres have since then developed a CTR program in accordance to (inter)national guidelines. CTR aims to improve the quality of life of patients, therefore analyses of quality of life is essential. Purpose Our study aims to analyse quality of life changes over a period of three months after program initiation for patients choosing to participate in either centre-based CR or CTR. Methods Our study included (N)STEMI patients eligible for CR between November 2021 and November 2022. Patients were invited by the cardiac rehabilitation nurse during intake to participate in CR. Patients were offered the choice between centre-based CR and CTR. The centre-based CR exercise program typically lasted for 6-8 weeks and the CTR program for a total of 48 weeks. CTR offers remote-access, digital platform for patients to interact with their healthcare professionals. The digital platform monitors physical activity and progress, which can be access by both patients and coaches. Coaches provide remote-access feedback. The SF-36 questionnaire was send out right after the CR intake procedure (T0) and three months after the CR intake procedure (T1). We only analysed data from participants who completed both T0 and T1 questionnaires, using the paired sample T-test for both CTR and centre-based CR. Results Until now, 173 patients have been included in the study of which 42 patients (24%) participated in CTR. 143 patients reached T1. 84 (59%) participants completed both T0 and T1 questionnaires, of which 24 (29%) participate in CTR (92% male, mean age 60) and 60 (71%) participate in centre-based CR (80% male, mean age 64). Participants from the centre-based CR program improved on both physical (score: +11,12; p < 0,001) and emotional (score: +9,30; p = 0,028) role functioning over a three month period. Participants in the CTR program improved on physical role functioning (score: +18,75; p = 0,002) and social functioning (score: + 13,54; p = 0,019). Conclusion Our preliminary show that patients were able to improve quality of life in both CTR and centre-based CR. Therefore, CTR can be used as an alternative to centre-based CR as standard care. Future research should focus on long term effects on quality of life.