Effect of Home-based Cardiac Rehabilitation for Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
SUMMARY: This study is to investigate the effect of home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) on quality of life, functional capacity, and readmission rates in patients with heart failure. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were screened from Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. The intervention group received a standardized HBCR or a comprehensive rehabilitation strategy that included HBCR. The participants in the control group received CR at a medical center or usual care without CR intervention. The main outcome measurements included quality of life, exercise capacity, mortality and re-hospitalization. This meta-analysis included 20 RCTs, in which 16 studies compared HBCR with usual care, and 4 studies compared HBCR with center-based CR. In comparison with the usual care, HBCR improved the total quality of life score [MD=-5.85, 95 % CI (-9.76, - 1.94), P=0.003, I2=75 %]. Patients with HBCR and usual care were significantly different in VO2max [MD=1.05 mL/kg/min, 95 % CI (0.35, 1.75), P=0.003, I2=46 %]. However, VO2max of patients with HBCR was not significantly different from those with center-based CR [MD=0.08 mL/kg/min, 95 % CI (-1.29, 1.44), P=0.91, I2=0 %]. There was statistically significant difference in the 6-min Walk Distance between usual care and HBCR (for distance [MD=11.84, 95 % CI (7.41, 16.28), P<0.00001, I2=0 %]; and for feet [MD=98.93, 95 % CI (26.79, 171.08), P=0.007, I2=56 %]). However, there was no significant difference in 6-min Walk Distance between patients with HBCR and center-based CR [MD=12.45, 95 % CI (-9.81, 34.72), P=0.27, I2=0 %] , or in anxiety and depression between patients with usual care and HBCR (for anxiety, [MD=-0.25, 95 % CI (-0.56, 0.05), P=0.11, I2=0 %]; for depression, [MD=-0.18, 95 % CI (-0.51, 0.16), P=0.30, I2=0 %] . No significant difference was found in death number [RR=1.04, 95 % CI (0.55, 1.98), P=0.90, I2=0 %] or in the number of re-hospitalization [RR=0.88, 95 % CI (0.66, 1.18), P=0.40, I2=0 %] between usual care and HBCR. For patients with heart failure, compare with usual care and center-based CR, HBCR can improve the total quality of life. Compare with usual care, HBCR can improve VO2max and 6-min Walk Distance, but compare with center- based CR, there are no differences in mortality, re-hospitalization rate or incidence of anxiety and depression. Additionally, center- based CR and HBCR showed similar outcomes and medical costs.
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Digital revista |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Sociedad Chilena de Anatomía
2023
|
| Online Access: | http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-95022023000100246 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | SUMMARY: This study is to investigate the effect of home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) on quality of life, functional capacity, and readmission rates in patients with heart failure. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were screened from Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. The intervention group received a standardized HBCR or a comprehensive rehabilitation strategy that included HBCR. The participants in the control group received CR at a medical center or usual care without CR intervention. The main outcome measurements included quality of life, exercise capacity, mortality and re-hospitalization. This meta-analysis included 20 RCTs, in which 16 studies compared HBCR with usual care, and 4 studies compared HBCR with center-based CR. In comparison with the usual care, HBCR improved the total quality of life score [MD=-5.85, 95 % CI (-9.76, - 1.94), P=0.003, I2=75 %]. Patients with HBCR and usual care were significantly different in VO2max [MD=1.05 mL/kg/min, 95 % CI (0.35, 1.75), P=0.003, I2=46 %]. However, VO2max of patients with HBCR was not significantly different from those with center-based CR [MD=0.08 mL/kg/min, 95 % CI (-1.29, 1.44), P=0.91, I2=0 %]. There was statistically significant difference in the 6-min Walk Distance between usual care and HBCR (for distance [MD=11.84, 95 % CI (7.41, 16.28), P<0.00001, I2=0 %]; and for feet [MD=98.93, 95 % CI (26.79, 171.08), P=0.007, I2=56 %]). However, there was no significant difference in 6-min Walk Distance between patients with HBCR and center-based CR [MD=12.45, 95 % CI (-9.81, 34.72), P=0.27, I2=0 %] , or in anxiety and depression between patients with usual care and HBCR (for anxiety, [MD=-0.25, 95 % CI (-0.56, 0.05), P=0.11, I2=0 %]; for depression, [MD=-0.18, 95 % CI (-0.51, 0.16), P=0.30, I2=0 %] . No significant difference was found in death number [RR=1.04, 95 % CI (0.55, 1.98), P=0.90, I2=0 %] or in the number of re-hospitalization [RR=0.88, 95 % CI (0.66, 1.18), P=0.40, I2=0 %] between usual care and HBCR. For patients with heart failure, compare with usual care and center-based CR, HBCR can improve the total quality of life. Compare with usual care, HBCR can improve VO2max and 6-min Walk Distance, but compare with center- based CR, there are no differences in mortality, re-hospitalization rate or incidence of anxiety and depression. Additionally, center- based CR and HBCR showed similar outcomes and medical costs. |
|---|