Full Text

Turn on search term navigation

© 2022 Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

Background

This review aimed to compare the relative effectiveness of different exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) delivery modes (centre-based, home-based, hybrid and technology-enabled ExCR) on key heart failure (HF) outcomes: exercise capacity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), HF-related hospitalisation and HF-related mortality.

Methods and results

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published through 20 June 2021 were identified from six databases, and reference lists of included studies. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated using the Cochrane tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, respectively. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using R. Continuous and binary outcomes are reported as mean differences (MD) and ORs, respectively, with 95% credible intervals (95% CrI). One-hundred and thirty-nine RCTs (n=18 670) were included in the analysis. Network meta-analysis demonstrated improvements in VO2peak following centre-based (MD (95% CrI)=3.10 (2.56 to 3.65) mL/kg/min), home-based (MD=2.69 (1.67 to 3.70) mL/kg/min) and technology-enabled ExCR (MD=1.76 (0.27 to 3.26) mL/kg/min). Similarly, 6 min walk distance was improved following hybrid (MD=84.78 (31.64 to 138.32) m), centre-based (MD=50.35 (30.15 to 70.56) m) and home-based ExCR (MD=36.77 (12.47 to 61.29) m). Incremental shuttle walk distance did not improve following any ExCR delivery modes. Minnesota living with HF questionnaire improved after centre-based (MD=−10.38 (−14.15 to –6.46)) and home-based ExCR (MD=−8.80 (−13.62 to –4.07)). Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire was improved following home-based ExCR (MD=20.61 (4.61 to 36.47)), and Short Form Survey 36 mental component after centre-based ExCR (MD=3.64 (0.30 to 6.14)). HF-related hospitalisation and mortality risks reduced only after centre-based ExCR (OR=0.41 (0.17 to 0.76) and OR=0.42 (0.16 to 0.90), respectively). Mean age of study participants was only associated with changes in VO2peak.

Conclusion

ExCR programmes have broader benefits for people with HF and since different delivery modes were comparably effective for improving exercise capacity and HRQoL, the selection of delivery modes should be tailored to individuals’ preferences.

Details

Title
Effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation delivery modes on exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in heart failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Author
Teketo Kassaw Tegegne 1   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Rawstorn, Jonathan C 2   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Nourse, Rebecca Amy 2 ; Kelemu Tilahun Kibret 3 ; Kedir Yimam Ahmed 4 ; Maddison, Ralph 2 

 Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; Department of Public Health, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Amhara, Ethiopia 
 Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia 
 Global Obesity Centre, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia 
 Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia 
First page
e001949
Section
Meta-analysis
Publication year
2022
Publication date
2022
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group LTD
ISSN
2398595X
e-ISSN
20533624
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
2674949517
Copyright
© 2022 Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.