Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center Providence RI.
Center for Cardiac Fitness The Miriam Hospital Providence RI.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Aug 20;8(16):e012779. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.012779. Epub 2019 Aug 17.
Background Center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) can be an alternative to increase access for patients who cannot participate in CBCR. Hybrid cardiac rehabilitation (CR) combines short-term CBCR with HBCR, potentially allowing both flexibility and rigor. However, recent data comparing these initiatives have not been synthesized. Methods and Results We performed a meta-analysis to compare functional capacity and health-related quality of life (hr-QOL) outcomes in HF for (1) HBCR and usual care, (2) hybrid CR and usual care, and (3) HBCR and CBCR. A systematic search in 5 standard databases for randomized controlled trials was performed through January 31, 2019. Summary estimates were pooled using fixed- or random-effects (when I>50%) meta-analyses. Standardized mean differences (95% CI) were used for distinct hr-QOL tools. We identified 31 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1791 HF participants. Among 18 studies that compared HBCR and usual care, participants in HBCR had improvement of peak oxygen uptake (2.39 mL/kg per minute; 95% CI, 0.28-4.49) and hr-QOL (16 studies; standardized mean difference: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.19-0.57). Nine RCTs that compared hybrid CR with usual care showed that hybrid CR had greater improvements in peak oxygen uptake (9.72 mL/kg per minute; 95% CI, 5.12-14.33) but not in hr-QOL (2 studies; standardized mean difference: 0.67; 95% CI, -0.20 to 1.54). Five studies comparing HBCR with CBCR showed similar improvements in functional capacity (0.0 mL/kg per minute; 95% CI, -1.93 to 1.92) and hr-QOL (4 studies; standardized mean difference: 0.11; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.34). Conclusions HBCR and hybrid CR significantly improved functional capacity, but only HBCR improved hr-QOL over usual care. However, both are potential alternatives for patients who are not suitable for CBCR.
中心型心脏康复(CBCR)已被证明可改善心力衰竭(HF)患者的预后。家庭型心脏康复(HBCR)可以作为增加无法参加 CBCR 患者的参与度的替代方案。混合心脏康复(CR)将短期 CBCR 与 HBCR 相结合,具有灵活性和严格性。然而,最近比较这些方案的数据尚未综合。
我们进行了荟萃分析,以比较 HF 患者中(1)HBCR 和常规护理、(2)混合 CR 和常规护理以及(3)HBCR 和 CBCR 的功能能力和健康相关生活质量(hr-QOL)结果。通过 5 个标准数据库对截止到 2019 年 1 月 31 日的随机对照试验进行了系统检索。使用固定或随机效应(当 I>50%)荟萃分析汇总汇总估计值。使用标准化均数差(95%CI)来比较不同的 HR-QOL 工具。我们共纳入 31 项随机对照试验,共纳入 1791 名 HF 患者。在比较 HBCR 和常规护理的 18 项研究中,HBCR 组的峰值摄氧量(2.39 mL/kg/分钟;95%CI,0.28-4.49)和 HR-QOL(16 项研究;标准化均数差:0.38;95%CI,0.19-0.57)均有改善。9 项 RCT 比较混合 CR 和常规护理,结果显示混合 CR 在峰值摄氧量方面有更大的改善(9.72 mL/kg/分钟;95%CI,5.12-14.33),但 HR-QOL 无改善(2 项研究;标准化均数差:0.67;95%CI,-0.20 至 1.54)。5 项比较 HBCR 和 CBCR 的研究显示,功能能力(0.0 mL/kg/分钟;95%CI,-1.93 至 1.92)和 HR-QOL(4 项研究;标准化均数差:0.11;95%CI,-0.12 至 0.34)改善相似。
HBCR 和混合 CR 显著改善了功能能力,但只有 HBCR 改善了常规护理之外的 HR-QOL。然而,对于不适合 CBCR 的患者,两者都是潜在的替代方案。