Efficacy and Safety of Hybrid Comprehensive Telerehabilitation (HCTR) for Cardiac Rehabilitation in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Zheming Yang, Xiaodong Jia, Jiayin Li and 4 others
PMID 37593110WHAT IT FOUND
The primary outcomes of mortality and readmission showed no significant difference between hybrid telerehabilitation and usual care in 1578 cardiac patients.
Exercise capacity improved significantly, but quality of life did not change.
Key findings
01Neither death nor hospital readmission for cardiovascular disease differed between the telerehabilitation group and usual care.
02Peak oxygen uptake and 6-minute walk distance were significantly higher in the telerehabilitation group than in usual care.
03Health-related quality of life, measured by the SF-36, did not differ between the two groups.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 8 trials were included, and the authors note the small sample size of the individual randomised trials. The studies varied in how they delivered and monitored the telerehabilitation programme, which may have influenced the pooled results. The analysis was restricted to cardiovascular disease; no other conditions were included. The number of trials contributing to each outcome was small (3 to 4), limiting the robustness of the pooled estimates.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the exercise capacity gains as proof that hybrid telerehabilitation is superior to usual care overall. The primary outcomes the study was designed to measure, mortality and readmission, showed no significant difference (P = 0.43 and P = 0.76), and quality of life was also unchanged (P = 0.15). The positive findings are confined to secondary functional measures.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →