Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Sep 14;3(2):e000463.
doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2016-000463. eCollection 2016.

Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation: abridged Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

S A Buckingham  1 , R S Taylor  2 , K Jolly  3 , A Zawada  4 , S G Dean  2 , A Cowie  5 , R J Norton  6 , H M Dalal  7
Affiliations

Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation: abridged Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

S A Buckingham et al. Open Heart. .

Abstract

Objective: To update the Cochrane review comparing the effects of home-based and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on mortality and morbidity, quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease.

Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched up to October 2014, without language restriction. Randomised trials comparing home-based and centre-based CR programmes in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure or who had undergone coronary revascularisation were included.

Results: 17 studies with 2172 patients were included. No difference was seen between home-based and centre-based CR in terms of: mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.47); cardiac events; exercise capacity (mean difference (MD) -0.10, -0.29 to 0.08); total cholesterol (MD 0.07 mmol/L, -0.24 to 0.11); low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD -0.06 mmol/L, -0.27 to 0.15); triglycerides (MD -0.16 mmol/L, -0.38 to 0.07); systolic blood pressure (MD 0.2 mm Hg, -3.4 to 3.8); smoking (RR 0.98, 0.79 to 1.21); health-related quality of life and healthcare costs. Lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD -0.07 mmol/L, -0.11 to -0.03, p=0.001) and lower diastolic blood pressure (MD -1.9 mm Hg, -0.8 to -3.0, p=0.009) were observed in centre-based participants. Home-based CR was associated with slightly higher adherence (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07).

Conclusions: Home-based and centre-based CR provide similar benefits in terms of clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes at equivalent cost for those with heart failure and following myocardial infarction and revascularisation.

Keywords: CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; HEART FAILURE.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Summary of study selection process.RCT, randomised controlled trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Summary of risk of bias assessment (authors’ judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study).
Figure 3
Figure 3
(A) Exercise capacity with home-based and centre-based CR at ≤12 months’ follow-up. (B) Exercise capacity with home-based and centre-based CR at 12–24 months’ follow-up. CR, cardiac rehabilitation.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. World Health Organization (WHO) 2015. WHO Mortality Database: 25 November 2015. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/mortality_rawdata/en/index.html (accessed 25 May 2016).
    1. British Heart Foundation (BHF). Heart statistics 2015. http://www.bhf.org.uk/research/heart-statistics (accessed 22 Dec 2015).
    1. Balady GJ, Williams MA, Ades PA et al. , American Heart Association Exercise, Cardiac Rehabilitation, and Prevention Committee; Council on Clinical Cardiology; Councils on Cardiovascular Nursing, Epidemiology and Prevention, and Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism; American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Core components of cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention programs: 2007 update: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Exercise, Cardiac Rehabilitation, and Prevention Committee, the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the councils on Cardiovascular Nursing, Epidemiology and Prevention, and Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism; and the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation . J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev 2007;27:121–9. - PubMed
    1. Piepoli M, Maugeri FS, Campana M et al. . Experience from controlled trials of physical training in chronic heart failure. Protocol and patient factors in effectiveness in the improvement of exercise tolerance. Eur Heart J 1998;19:466–75. - PubMed
    1. Piepoli MF, Corrà U, Benzer W et al. , Cardiac Rehabilitation Section of the European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. Secondary prevention through cardiac rehabilitation: from knowledge to implementation. A position paper from the Cardiac Rehabilitation Section of the European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2010;17:1–17. 10.1097/HJR.0b013e3283313592 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources