Traditional Versus Hybrid Outpatient Cardiac Rehabilitation: A COMPARISON OF PATIENT OUTCOMES

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Purpose:

Due to the suboptimal uptake of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), alternative models have been proposed. This study compared the effectiveness of a traditional supervised program in a medical setting versus a hybrid CR model, where patients transition to unsupervised programming.

Methods:

This was a prospective, 2-arm, nonrandomized study. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functional capacity, physical activity, diet, smoking, blood pressure, lipids, blood glucose, anthropometrics, and depressive symptoms were assessed before and after the 8-week program models. Program adherence and completion were also recorded. Both models offered outpatient supervised exercise sessions, group health education classes, and a resource manual. The hybrid model involved a blend of supervised and unsupervised, independent home-based exercise, and followup phone calls.

Results:

One hundred twenty-five cardiac patients consented to the study, of whom 72 (57.6%) and 53 chose the traditional and hybrid programs, respectively. One hundred ten (traditional: n = 62, 86.1%; hybrid: n = 48, 92.3%; P > .05) participants completed their program. Significant improvements were observed for both models over time in HRQoL (P < .001), physical activity (P < .001), and diet (P < .001). Significant reductions in smoking (P = .043), systolic blood pressure (P < .001), total cholesterol (P < .001), low-density lipoprotein (P < .001), waist circumference (P < .001), and depressive symptoms (P < .001) were also observed. There were no significant differences pre- and postprograms between models for any outcome.

Conclusions:

Hybrid CR was not significantly different from the traditional model in terms of HRQoL, functional capacity, heart health behaviors, and risk factors, with no differences in completion rates.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles