Efficacy and Safety of Home-Based Cardiac Telemonitoring Rehabilitation in Patients After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Single-Center Usability and Feasibility Study.

Only 11 HBTR participants and 6 historical controls were analysed, from one centre, so the results are preliminary and may not apply to other patients. The groups were not randomised and the controls came from an earlier period, so differences in care, selection, or time could explain the results. HBTR required an attendant and internet, so patients with social or environmental barriers were not included. All patients also received standardized inpatient cardiac rehabilitation after TAVI, and the home program included education, exercise, video calls, ECG monitoring, and daily resistance training, so the effect of any single component cannot be separated. During home sessions, the cycle ergometer was not monitored, so actual exercise intensity could not be confirmed. Daily activity was not measured, so changes in normal activity could have affected outcomes. The 6-minute walk test was not performed in the control group, so that outcome could not be compared directly.

One author is a clinical proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and another is a training proctor for Abbott Medical Japan. The other authors declared no conflicts. No funding source is stated in the supplied text.

Do not conclude that home telemonitoring alone caused the improvement or that it is better than outpatient cardiac rehabilitation. The 11 HBTR participants improved in peak oxygen uptake, but the change was not significantly different from the 6 historical outpatient controls, and the program also included prior inpatient cardiac rehabilitation, education, supervised aerobic exercise, video calls, ECG monitoring, and daily resistance training, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated.