The iATTEND Trial: A Trial Comparing Hybrid Versus Standard Cardiac Rehabilitation.

The improving ATTENDance (iATTEND) to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) trial tested the hypotheses that hybrid CR (HYCR) (combination of virtual and in-facility CR sessions) would result in greater attendance compared with traditional, facility-based only CR (FBCR) and yield equivalent improvements in exercise capacity and health status. Patients were randomized to HYCR (n = 142) or FBCR (n = 140), stratified by gender and race. Attendance was assessed as number of CR sessions completed within 6 months (primary end point) and the percentage of patients completing 36 CR sessions. Other end points (tested for equivalency) included exercise capacity and self-reported health status. HYCR patients completed 1 to 12 sessions in-facility, with the balance completed virtually using synchronized, 2-way audiovisual technology. Neither total number of CR sessions completed within 6 months (29 ± 12 vs 28 ± 12 visits, adjusted p = 0.94) nor percentage of patients completing 36 sessions (59 ± 4% vs 51 ± 4%, adjusted p = 0.32) were significantly different between HYCR and FBCR, respectively. The between-group changes for exercise capacity (peak oxygen uptake, 6-minute walk distance) and health status were equivalent. Regarding safety, no sessions required physician involvement, there was 1 major adverse event after a virtual session, and no falls required medical attention. In conclusion, although we rejected our primary hypothesis that attendance would be greater with HYCR versus FBCR, we showed that FBCR and HYCR resulted in similar patient attendance patterns and equivalent improvements in exercise capacity and health status. HYCR which incorporates virtually supervised exercise should be considered an acceptable alternative to FBCR. NCT Identifier: 03646760; The Improving ATTENDance to Cardiac Rehabilitation Trial - Full-Text View - ClinicalTrials. gov; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03646760.

Among Patients Taking Beta-Adrenergic Blockade Therapy, Use Measured (Not Predicted) Maximal Heart Rate to Calculate a Target Heart Rate for Cardiac Rehabilitation.

PURPOSE: Among patients in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on beta-adrenergic blockade (ßB) therapy, this study describes the frequency for which target heart rate (THR) values computed using a predicted maximal heart rate (HR max ), correspond to a THR computed using a measured HR max in the guideline-based heart rate reserve (HR reserve ) method. METHODS: Before CR, patients completed a cardiopulmonary exercise test to measure HR max , with the data used to determine THR via the HR reserve method. Additionally, predicted HR max was computed for all patients using the 220 - age equation and two disease-specific equations, with the predicted values used to calculate THR via the straight percent and HR reserve methods. The THR was also computed using resting heart rate (HR) +20 and +30 bpm. RESULTS: Mean predicted HR max using the 220 - age equation (161 ± 11 bpm) and the disease-specific equations (123 ± 9 bpm) differed ( P < .001) from measured HR max (133 ± 21 bpm). Also, THR computed using predicted HR max resulted in values that were infrequently within the guideline-based HR reserve range calculated using measured HR max . Specifically, 0 to ≤61% of patients would have had an exercise training HR that fell within the guideline-based range of 50-80% of measured HR reserve . Use of standing resting HR +20 or +30 bpm would have resulted in 100% and 48%, respectively, of patients exercising below 50% of HR reserve . CONCLUSIONS: A THR computed using either predicted HR max or resting HR +20 or +30 bpm seldom results in a prescribed exercise intensity that is consistent with guideline recommendations for patients in CR.

A Comparison of Exercise Intensity in Hybrid Versus Standard Phase Two Cardiac Rehabilitation.

PURPOSE: To compare exercise training intensity during standard cardiac rehabilitation (S-CR) versus hybrid-CR (combined clinic- and remote home-/community-based). METHODS: The iATTEND (improving ATTENDance to cardiac rehabilitation) trial is currently enrolling subjects and randomizing patients to S-CR versus hybrid-CR. This substudy involves the first 47 subjects who completed ≥18 CR sessions. Patients in S-CR completed all visits in a typical phase II clinic-based setting and patients in hybrid-CR completed up to 17 of their sessions remotely using telehealth (TH). Exercise training intensity in both CR settings is based on heart rate (HR) data from each CR session, expressed as percent HR reserve. RESULTS: Among patients in both study groups, there were no serious adverse events or falls that required hospitalization during or within 3 hr after completing a CR session. Expressed as a percentage of HR reserve, the overall mean exercise training intensities during both the S-CR sessions and the TH-CR sessions from hybrid-CR were not significantly different at 63 ± 12% and 65 ± 10%, respectively (P = .29). CONCLUSION: This study showed that hybrid-CR delivered using remote TH results in exercise training intensities that are not significantly different from S-CR.