{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Different Models of Cardiac Telerehabilitation for People with Coronary Artery Disease: Features and Effectiveness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
{Author}: Pagliari C;Isernia S;Rapisarda L;Borgnis F;Lazzeroni D;Bini M;Geroldi S;Baglio F;Brambilla L;
{Journal}: J Clin Med
{Volume}: 13
{Issue}: 12
{Year}: 2024 Jun 10
{Factor}: 4.964
{DOI}: 10.3390/jcm13123396
{Abstract}: Objectives: Cardiac telerehabilitation (TR) for coronary artery disease (CAD) is a feasible alternative to the center-based rehabilitation delivery model. However, the features of exercise-based cardiac TR are still heterogeneous among studies, making it difficult to disentangle the preferable reference strategies to be recommended for the adoption of this new delivery of care. In addition, little is known about the effectiveness of different models, such as the hybrid model (CRh) including both center-based and home-based telerehabilitation approaches, and the solely home-based telerehabilitation (CTR). Methods: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included TR intervention in patients with CAD to profile the features of the telerehabilitation approach for CAD. We also conducted a meta-analysis to separately assess the effectiveness of CTR and CRh on medical benefit outcome measures compared to conventional intervention (CI). Results: Out of 17.692 studies, 28 RCTs involving 2.662 CAD patients were included in the review. The studies presented an equal proportion of the CTR and CRh models. The interventions were mainly multidimensional, with a frequency of 1 month to 6 months, with each session ranging between 20 to 70 min. In CRh, the intervention was mainly consecutive to center-based rehabilitation. All studies adopted asynchronous communication in TR, mainly providing monitoring/assessment, decisions, and offline feedback. Few studies reported mortality, and none reported data about re-hospitalization or morbidity. Adherence to the CTR and CRh interventions was high (over 80%). The meta-analyses showed the superior effect of CTR compared to CI in exercise capacity. An overall noninferiority effect of both CTR and CRh compared to CI was found with factors including risk control and participation. Conclusions: The results of the review and meta-analyses indicated that CTR and CRh are equally effective, safe, convenient, and valid alternatives to cardiac conventional interventions. The evidence suggests that telerehabilitation may represent a valid alternative to overcome cardiac rehabilitation barriers.