Claes Jomme, Buys Roselien, Budts Werner, Smart Neil, Cornelissen Véronique A
1 Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, Division of Cardiology, KU Leuven, Belgium.
2 Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Research group of Cardiovascular Rehabilitation, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017 Feb;24(3):244-256. doi: 10.1177/2047487316675823. Epub 2016 Oct 27.
Background Exercise-based cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR) improves exercise capacity (EC), lowers cardiovascular risk profile and increases physical functioning in the short term. However, uptake of and adherence to a physically active lifestyle in the long run remain problematic. Home-based (HB) exercise programmes have been introduced in an attempt to enhance long-term adherence to recommended levels of physical activity (PA). The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the longer-term effects of HB exercise programmes with usual care (UC) or centre-based (CB) CR in patients referred for CR. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods Non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or randomised trials comparing the effects of HB exercise programmes with UC or CB rehabilitation on EC and/or PA, with a follow-up period of ≥12 months and performed in coronary artery disease patients, were searched in four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL)) from their inception until September 7, 2016. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) were calculated and pooled by means of random effects models. Risk of bias, publication bias and heterogeneity among trials were also assessed. Results Seven studies could be included in the meta-analysis on EC, but only two studies could be included in the meta-analysis on PA (total number of 1440 patients). The results showed no significant differences in EC between HB rehabilitation and UC (SMD 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 0.33). There was a small but significant difference in EC in favour of HB compared to CB rehabilitation (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.02-0.48). No differences were found for PA (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.92). Conclusions HB exercise is slightly more effective than CB rehabilitation in terms of maintaining EC. The small number of studies warrants the need for more RCTs evaluating the long-term effects of different CR interventions on EC and PA behaviour, as this is the ultimate goal of CR.
背景 基于运动的心血管康复(CR)在短期内可提高运动能力(EC)、降低心血管疾病风险并增强身体机能。然而,从长远来看,采用并坚持积极的生活方式仍然存在问题。为了提高长期坚持推荐的身体活动(PA)水平,已引入家庭式(HB)运动计划。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较HB运动计划与常规护理(UC)或中心式(CB)CR对接受CR治疗患者的长期影响。
设计 系统评价和荟萃分析。
方法 在四个数据库(PubMed、EMBASE、护理及相关健康文献累积索引(CINAHL)和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL))中检索从建库至2016年9月7日期间,比较HB运动计划与UC或CB康复对EC和/或PA影响的非随机对照试验(RCT)或随机试验,随访期≥12个月,且研究对象为冠状动脉疾病患者。计算标准化均数差(SMD),并通过随机效应模型进行汇总。还评估了试验中的偏倚风险、发表偏倚和异质性。
结果 七项研究可纳入EC的荟萃分析,但PA的荟萃分析仅能纳入两项研究(共1440例患者)。结果显示,HB康复与UC之间的EC无显著差异(SMD 0.10,95%置信区间(CI)-0.13至0.33)。与CB康复相比,HB在EC方面有微小但显著的差异(SMD 0.25,95% CI 0.02 - 0.48)。PA方面未发现差异(SMD 0.37,95% CI -0.18至0.92)。
结论 在维持EC方面,HB运动比CB康复稍有效。研究数量较少,因此需要更多RCT来评估不同CR干预措施对EC和PA行为的长期影响,因为这是CR的最终目标。