Department of Medicine University of California, San Francisco CA.
Department of Medicine San Francisco VA Health Care System San Francisco CA.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Oct 20;9(19):e016456. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.016456. Epub 2020 Sep 21.
Background Cardiac rehabilitation is an established performance measure for adults with ischemic heart disease, but patient participation is remarkably low. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) may be more practical and feasible, but evidence regarding its efficacy is limited. We sought to compare the effects of HBCR versus facility-based cardiac rehabilitation (FBCR) on functional status in patients with ischemic heart disease. Methods and Results This was a pragmatic trial of 237 selected patients with a recent ischemic heart disease event, who enrolled in HBCR or FBCR between August 2015 and September 2017. The primary outcome was 3-month change in distance completed on a 6-minute walk test. Secondary outcomes included rehospitalization as well as patient-reported physical activity, quality of life, and self-efficacy. Characteristics of the 116 patients enrolled in FBCR and 121 enrolled in HBCR were similar, except the mean time from index event to enrollment was shorter for HBCR (25 versus 77 days; <0.001). As compared with patients undergoing FBCR, those in HBCR achieved greater 3-month gains in 6-minute walk test distance (+95 versus +41 m; <0.001). After adjusting for demographics, comorbid conditions, and indication, the mean change in 6-minute walk test distance remained significantly greater for patients enrolled in HBCR (+101 versus +40 m; <0.001). HBCR participants reported greater improvements in quality of life and physical activity but less improvement in exercise self-efficacy. There were no deaths or cardiovascular hospitalizations. Conclusions Patients enrolled in HBCR achieved greater 3-month functional gains than those enrolled in FBCR. Our data suggest that HBCR may safely derive equivalent benefits in exercise capacity and overall program efficacy in selected patients. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02105246.
心脏康复是一种已确立的成人缺血性心脏病的疗效指标,但患者参与度却低得惊人。基于家庭的心脏康复(HBCR)可能更实用、更可行,但关于其疗效的证据有限。我们旨在比较 HBCR 与基于设施的心脏康复(FBCR)对缺血性心脏病患者功能状态的影响。
这是一项 237 例近期发生缺血性心脏病事件患者的实用试验,他们于 2015 年 8 月至 2017 年 9 月期间分别参加 HBCR 或 FBCR。主要结局是 6 分钟步行试验的 3 个月变化距离。次要结局包括再住院以及患者报告的身体活动、生活质量和自我效能。接受 FBCR 的 116 例患者和接受 HBCR 的 121 例患者的特征相似,除了 HBCR 组从发病事件到入组的平均时间更短(25 天与 77 天;<0.001)。与接受 FBCR 的患者相比,接受 HBCR 的患者在 3 个月内 6 分钟步行试验距离增加幅度更大(+95 米与+41 米;<0.001)。在校正了人口统计学、合并症和适应证后,HBCR 组的 6 分钟步行试验距离的平均变化仍显著更大(+101 米与+40 米;<0.001)。HBCR 参与者报告生活质量和身体活动有更大的改善,但运动自我效能的改善较小。没有死亡或心血管住院事件。
参加 HBCR 的患者在 3 个月内获得了比参加 FBCR 的患者更大的功能改善。我们的数据表明,在选定的患者中,HBCR 可能安全地获得等效的运动能力和整体项目疗效获益。