Home-based cardiac rehabilitation versus hospital-based rehabilitation: A cost effectiveness analysis

ObjectiveHome-based cardiac rehabilitation and hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation have had different results in improving quality of life, negative psychology, and blood lipids. The objective of this study was to systematically compare the effectiveness of home-based and hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with coronary artery disease.MethodsRCTs related to application of home-based and center-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with coronary heart disease were searched in multiple e-databases in English and Chinese from January 2000 to March 2025. Two researchers independently screened the articles and extracted the data. Cochrane5.1.0 manual was used to evaluate the quality of the included articles, and RevMan5.4 software was used for Meta analysis.ResultsA total of 1808 patients were included in 14 articles. Meta-analysis showed that cardiac rehabilitation at home and in hospital improved peak oxygen uptake [MD = 0.30, 95% CI (-0.37, 0.97), P=0.38] and systolic blood pressure [MD=1.10, 95% CI (-1.01, 3.21), P=0.31], diastolic blood pressure [MD=0.94, 95% CI(-1.74, 3.62), P=0.49], triglyceride [MD=-0.03,95%CI(-0.15,0.10), P=0.65],fasting glucose [MD=0.15, 95%CI (-0.17,0.47), P=0.35], quality of life and psychological status(P＞0.05), BMI (P＞0.05). Total cholesterol in the hospital-based rehabilitation group was better than that in the home-based rehabilitation group [MD=0.11, 95% CI (0.01,0.21), P=0.03], however the results were not stable.ConclusionsCompared to hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation, home-based cardiac rehabilitation also improves the risk factors in patients with coronary artery disease. However, whether hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation is better than home-based cardiac rehabilitation for total cholesterol needs further validation.No Patient or Public Contribution.

Comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation has positive effects on many cardiac risk factors (physical activity, smoking status, cholesterol, anxiety and depression) and can lead to improvements in mortality, morbidity and quality of life. Most formal cardiac rehabilitation in the UK is offered within a hospital or centre setting, although this may not always be convenient or accessible for many cardiac patients, especially those in remote areas. The proportion of eligible patients who successfully complete a cardiac rehabilitation program remains low. There are many reasons for this but geographical isolation and transport issues are important. This systematic review examines the current evidence for home- versus hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation offers greater accessibility to cardiac rehabilitation and has the potential to increase uptake. While there have been fewer studies of home-based cardiac rehabilitation, the available data suggest that it has comparable results to hospital-based programs. Many of these studies are small and heterogeneous in terms of interventions but home-based cardiac rehabilitation appears both safe and effective. Available evidence suggests that it results in longer lasting maintenance of physical activity levels compared with hospital-based rehabilitation and is equally effective in improving cardiac risk factors. Furthermore, it has the potential to be a more cost-effective intervention for patients who cannot easily access their local centre or hospital. Currently home-based cardiac rehabilitation is not offered routinely to all patients but it appears to have the potential to increase uptake in patients who are unable, or less likely, to attend more traditional hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation programs.

Improving outcomes in acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of home-based compared to hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation and usual care: 3-4 months (end of the program) and 9-10 months (6 months after the end of the program).

BackgroundCardiac rehabilitation following myocardial infarction reduces subsequent mortality, but uptake and adherence to rehabilitation programmes remains poor, particularly among women, the elderly and ethnic minority groups. Evidence of the effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation remains limited. This trial evaluates the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of home-based compared to hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation.Methods/designA pragmatic randomised controlled trial of home-based compared with hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation in four hospitals serving a multi-ethnic inner city population in the United Kingdom was designed. The home programme is nurse-facilitated, manual-based using the Heart Manual. The hospital programmes offer comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation in an out-patient setting.PatientsWe will randomise 650 adult, English or Punjabi-speaking patients of low-medium risk following myocardial infarction, coronary angioplasty or coronary artery bypass graft who have been referred for cardiac rehabilitation.Main outcome measuresSerum cholesterol, smoking cessation, blood pressure, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score, distance walked on Shuttle walk-test measured at 6, 12 and 24 months. Adherence to the programmes will be estimated using patient self-reports of activity.In-depth interviews with non-attendees and non-adherers will ascertain patient views and the acceptability of the programmes and provide insights about non-attendance and aims to generate a theory of attendance at cardiac rehabilitation. The economic analysis will measure National Health Service costs using resource inputs. Patient costs will be established from the qualitative research, in particular how they affect adherence.DiscussionMore data are needed on the role of home-based versus hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation for patients following myocardial infarction and revascularisation, which would be provided by the Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation Study (BRUM) study and has implications for the clinical management of these patients. A novel feature of this study is the inclusion of non-English Punjabi speakers.

Is home-based cardiac rehabilitation as effective as hospital-based rehabilitation in low-to-moderate–risk patients with recent myocardial infarction or revascularisation procedure? ### Design: randomised controlled trial. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 72884263. ###...

BACKGROUND: Depression is common in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) is a program that alleviates depression. This study aimed to determine and compare HBCR programs and usual care (UC) effects on depression control in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD). METHODS: This clinical trial study was performed on 259 patients with IHD that were randomly allocated to the HBCR and UC groups for stress management. Data were collected using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) at baseline and 6 and 12 months. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were applied to examine the associations between times of the groups and changes in outcomes over the study times. Data analysis was done in SPSS softwareat the significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 247 participants with a mean age of 55.22 ± 7.40 years participated in this study, and 209 (84.6%) of the study participants were men. Among patients, 128 patients in the UC program and 119 patients in the HBCR program attended at least one of the pre-determined visits (months 6 and 12). The patterns of change of the depression parameter were similar through the course of the study between the two groups (P = 0.04). In the HBCR group, the depression reduced continuously from baseline to 6 months, baseline to 12 months, and 6 to 12 months (P < 0.05). In the UC group, depression was significantly reduced from baseline to 6 months and from baseline to 12 months. CONCLUSION: HBCR was effective in continuous reducing of depression scores in long-term follow-up of patients with IHD. These findings suggest that HBCR can alleviate depression in patients who do not participate in hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR).

Home-based versus hospital-based rehabilitation after myocardial infarction: A randomized trial with preference arms — Cornwall Heart Attack Rehabilitation Management Study (CHARMS)

BACKGROUNDDepression is common in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) is a program that alleviates depression. This study aimed to determine and compare HBCR programs and usual care (UC) effects on depression control in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD).METHODSThis clinical trial study was performed on 259 patients with IHD that were randomly allocated to the HBCR and UC groups for stress management. Data were collected using the "Beck Depression Inventory" (BDI) at baseline and 6 and 12 months. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were applied to examine the associations between times of the groups and changes in outcomes over the study times. Data analysis was done in SPSS software at the significance level of 0.05.RESULTSA total of 247 participants with a mean age of 55.22 ± 7.40 years participated in this study, and 209 (84.6%) of the study participants were men. Among patients, 128 patients in the UC program and 119 patients in the HBCR program attended at least one of the pre-determined visits (months 6 and 12). The patterns of change of the depression parameter were similar through the course of the study between the two groups (P = 0.04). In the HBCR group, the depression reduced continuously from baseline to 6 months, baseline to 12 months, and 6 to 12 months (P < 0.05). In the UC group, depression was significantly reduced from baseline to 6 months and from baseline to 12 months.CONCLUSIONHBCR was effective in continuous reducing of depression scores in long-term follow-up of patients with IHD. These findings suggest that HBCR can alleviate depression in patients who do not participate in hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR).

The objectives of this study were to: (i) identify local barriers and enablers to the uptake of hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs, and (ii) identify preferred alternatives for the delivery of CR. A questionnaire administered by local CR coordinators and focus groups facilitated by the research team. Six regional hospitals in south-west Victoria offering hospital-based CR programs. Patients and their carers referred to and eligible for local CR programs; health professionals working within local CR programs. CR attendees and decliners demographics, patient and health professional perceived factors which contribute to enabling hospital-based CR attendance, patient and health professional perceived barriers to CR attendance, and receptiveness and preferences for alternative modes of CR delivery. This study identified distance to travel to hospital-based CR programs the only statistically significant factor in determining uptake of CR. Easy access to transport (63%) and to a lesser extent family support (49%) and work flexibility (43%) were the primary enablers to attendance. Of the 97 study participants, 38% were receptive to alternative CR methods such as programs in outlying communities, evening facility-based programs, home and GP based programs, telephone support and a patient manual/workbook. The results of this study provide valuable information for designing strategies to increase utilisation and improve patient acceptability of existing hospital-based CR programs. It provides a basis for pilot testing alternative modes of CR program delivery for cardiac patients in rural areas unable to access hospital-based CR.

Cardiac rehabilitation programs support the health, wellness, and recovery of patients with cardiovascular conditions. This systematic review attempts to expand these findings while analyzing the latest randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on the long-term advantages of home/center-based cardiac rehabilitation interventions. This study also comparatively analyzes the benefits of opting for home-based cardiac rehabilitation instead of center-based measures to improve the long-term clinical outcomes of cardiac patients. We extracted and analyzed 10 studies (based on 1,549 cardiac patients) concerning the therapeutic efficacy of center/home-based cardiac rehabilitation interventions. The included studies complied with the year range of 2000-2021. The risk of bias assessment was undertaken using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool to evaluate random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of subjects, outcome data completeness, and selective reporting patterns concerning the included RCTs.The findings of our systematic review confirmed the capacity of a home-based cardiac rehabilitation program to effectively improve left ventricular ejection fraction, health-related quality of life, physical fitness, recovery rate, self-efficacy, sedentary lifestyle, physical activity, satisfaction level, functional capacity, social support, and hemodynamic parameters of patients with cardiovascular diseases. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation had the potential to minimize the levels of triglycerides, anxiety, depression, waist circumference, and body mass index/weight of cardiac patients.The results of our systematic review affirmed the long-term therapeutic efficacy of a home-based cardiac rehabilitation program compared to a center-based cardiac rehabilitation program for adult cardiac patients.

Introduction: Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) adds flexibility for patients for whom hospital-based CR may not be accessible. The ERA-NUDGE study is a pragmatic randomized study, conducted at an urban safety-net hospital, which evaluated adherence and clinical outcomes of home- versus hospital-based CR, with mobile phone messaging. The resource requirements associated with home-based CR interactions are not yet well established. We aimed to compare program delivery time between home-based and hospital-based CR programming. Methods: For one random week in each of 22 months, program delivery times were recorded by a research team member who shadowed hospital CR sessions and reviewed chart notes for home-based CR interactions. Among the sub-set of participants who had interactions during these weeks, we compared time spent on four types of interactions and seven educational topics. Results: Among 326 patients that completed the parent study, 157 patients had 415 visits during the microcosting weeks (mean of 3.8 visits per patient). Demographics shown in Table 1. Home-based patients accounted for 134 encounters (32%) during microcosting collection weeks. Six- and twelve-week follow-up visits were split between hospital- and home-based groups (53% and 47%, respectively) (Table 2). Conclusions: Despite documented benefits for patients from CR, access remains low. Home-based CR may present an appealing alternative for patients with difficulties around CR access, but CR program directors may be wary of added staffing requirements to deliver these alternatives. Our analysis suggests that home-based CR can be delivered to patients without increases in personnel time.

Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has been demonstrated to be as effective as institution-based CR in post-coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) patients in terms of short-term physical and psychosocial outcomes. The sustainability of these effects is less well studied. The aim of this study was to examine the sustainability of observed changes in physical, quality of life (HRQL), and social support (SS) outcomes in patients 12 months after discharge from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 6 months of monitored home-based versus supervised hospital-based CR. Two-hundred and twenty-two (n=222) patients were followed-up 12 months after discharge from a RCT of 6 months of monitored 'Home' versus supervised 'Hospital' CR after CABG. At discharge from the 6-month RCT, participants who consented to the 12-month follow-up study, were given individualized guidelines for ongoing exercise, and were not contacted for 1 year. The primary outcome was peak oxygen uptake (VO2). Secondary outcomes were: HRQL, SS and habitual physical activity. One hundred and ninety-eight patients (89.2%), 102 'Hospital' and 96 'Home', returned for follow-up 12-months after discharge from CR. Both groups had similar medical and socio-demographic characteristics. Peak VO2 declined in 'Hospital' but was sustained in 'Home' patients 12 months after discharge from CR (P=0.002). Physical HRQL was higher in the 'Home' group at the 12-month follow-up (P<0.01). Mental HRQL showed general, minor deterioration over time in both groups (P=0.019). Twelve months after discharge from CR, physical and mental HRQL remained higher than at entry to CR in both groups. 'Home' patients had higher habitual physical activity scores compared to 'Hospital' patients. This follow-up study suggests that low-risk patients whose CR is initiated in the home environment may be more likely to sustain positive physical and psychosocial changes over time than patients whose program is initially institution-based.

The prevalence of coronary heart disease continues to increase in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Despite advances in cardiac surgery, there are no established outpatient cardiac rehabilitation programs in the KSA. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation compared with outpatient-based cardiac rehabilitation and usual care for patients who are post-coronary artery bypass graft surgery. This 3-arm, single-blind, randomized controlled trial was carried out at the King Faisal Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, KSA. A total of 82 patients post-coronary artery bypass graft surgery were randomized and 73 patients completed the study. Recruited patients were distributed to home-based cardiac rehabilitation (n = 24), outpatient-based cardiac rehabilitation (n = 25), or usual care (control group) (n = 24). Participants in the intervention groups completed an individualized exercise program for 2 hours, 3 times a week for 8 weeks. The control group followed usual care (no intervention). The incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT), metabolic equivalence task, Short Form-36, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were measured at baseline, postintervention, and after a 4-week follow-up period. Postintervention, there was an increase in mean ISWT score from baseline in both the home-based cardiac rehabilitation and outpatient-based cardiac rehabilitation groups (66 [0.58] m and 71 [9.19] m, respectively). No difference was observed in the control group. At the 4-week follow-up, both intervention groups showed statistically significant improvements in all outcome measures (ISWT, metabolic equivalence tasks, HADS-A, HADS-D, and Short Form-36) compared with baseline (all P < .001). The home-based cardiac rehabilitation group showed statistically continuous improvement compared with the outpatient-based cardiac rehabilitation group. The control group did not show any significant changes across time in outcome measures. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation is as effective as outpatient-based cardiac rehabilitation. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation appears to be more effective at maintaining improvements follow the end of the intervention.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Introduction Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation has been shown to improve aerobic capacity and mental health (i.e. anxiety and depression) and reduce the risk of a secondary cardiac event. Following hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation programs, patients are left largely on their own to return to their normal routines with no continuation of support for continued exercise training; many lack sufficient exercise experience and confidence to continue a regimen independently. High intensity interval training (HIIT) is effective when integrated into cardiac rehabilitation, but its effectiveness in a community setting is not established. Purpose To evaluate implementation of a HIIT exercise protocol into a community cardiac maintenance program, developed to provide supervised exercise training for graduates of hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation. Methods Recent (&amp;lt;1 year) graduates of hospital based cardiac rehabilitation patients were recruited to complete the 10-week program. Exercise sessions occurred 3 days per week for 50 minutes per session and consisted of the following: 1 day of strength training, 1 day of individual HIIT, and 1 day of group-based HIIT. Intensity prescription was based on ratings of perceived exertion (RPE). Aerobic intervals consisted of 4 minutes of high intensity (i.e. RPE of 15-17) and 3 minutes of low intensity (i.e. RPE of 9-11) on a modality of the participants choosing. RPE was recorded at the beginning, mid-point, and end of each interval to ensure intensity targets were being met. Assessments were completed at pre- and post-program for (1) physical fitness using the Seniors Fitness test; (2) mental health using the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) and subscales HADS, for anxiety (HADS-A) and depression (HADS-D); and, (3) self-efficacy using the self-efficacy for exercise (SEE) questionnaire. Results To date, 17 participants (age: 66.9 ± 7.6 years (range: 48-75) [100% male]) have completed the 10-week HIIT program, and data collection is ongoing. Significant improvements have been observed in physical fitness, specifically in the 6MWT (pre: 526 post: 570m; p-value = &amp;lt;0.01) and in SEE (pre: 30.7 ± 9.0 post: 73.9 ± 12.8, p-value = &amp;lt;0.01). While no significant changes have occurred in the HADS-A (pre: 3.8 ± 3.4 post: p-value = 0.22) or HADS-D (pre: 3.9 ± 2.1, post: 2.2 ± 1.9; p-value = 0.17) clinically meaningful changes were noted in the HADS-D. Conclusion These results suggest that continued supervised exercise training in a community setting is effective for improving physical and mental health and increases self-efficacy for exercise in recent hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation settings. Future research should evaluate ways to increase female participation.