Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: People with heart failure experience substantial disease burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous 2018 Cochrane review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission amongst people with heart failure, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with heart failure with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with heart failure with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in a hospital or centre-based setting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of ExCR on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of adults with heart failure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science without language restriction on 13 December 2021. We also checked the bibliographies of included studies, identified relevant systematic reviews, and two clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ExCR interventions (either exercise only or exercise as part of a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation) with a follow-up of six months or longer versus a no-exercise control (e.g. usual medical care). The study population comprised adults (≥ 18 years) with heart failure - either HFrEF or HFpEF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, mortality due to heart failure, all-cause hospital admissions, heart failure-related hospital admissions, and HRQoL. Secondary outcomes were costs and cost-effectiveness. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 60 trials (8728 participants) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 16 new trials (2945 new participants), in addition to the previously identified 44 trials (5783 existing participants). Although the existing evidence base predominantly includes patients with HFrEF, with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes II and III receiving centre-based ExCR programmes, a growing body of trials includes patients with HFpEF with ExCR undertaken in a home-based setting. All included trials employed a usual care comparator with a formal no-exercise intervention as well as a wide range of active comparators, such as education, psychological intervention, or medical management. The overall risk of bias in the included trials was low or unclear, and we mostly downgraded the certainty of evidence of outcomes upon GRADE assessment. There was no evidence of a difference in the short term (up to 12 months' follow-up) in the pooled risk of all-cause mortality when comparing ExCR versus usual care (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.21; absolute effects 5.0% versus 5.8%; 34 trials, 36 comparisons, 3941 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only a few trials reported information on whether participants died due to heart failure. Participation in ExCR versus usual care likely reduced the risk of all-cause hospital admissions (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; absolute effects 15.9% versus 23.8%; 23 trials, 24 comparisons, 2283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and heart failure-related hospital admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.35; absolute effects 5.6% versus 6.4%; 10 trials; 10 comparisons, 911 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) in the short term. Participation in ExCR likely improved short-term HRQoL as measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLWHF) questionnaire (lower scores indicate better HRQoL and a difference of 5 points or more indicates clinical importance; mean difference (MD) -7.39 points, 95% CI -10.30 to -4.77; 21 trials, 22 comparisons, 2699 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). When pooling HRQoL data measured by any questionnaire/scale, we found that ExCR may improve HRQoL in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (33 trials, 37 comparisons, 4769 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.34; very-low certainty evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent across different models of ExCR delivery: centre- versus home-based, exercise dose, exercise only versus comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone versus aerobic plus resistance programmes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane review provides additional randomised evidence (16 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous 2018 version of the review. Compared to no exercise control, whilst there was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality in people with heart failure, ExCR participation likely reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and heart failure-related hospital admissions, and may result in important improvements in HRQoL. Importantly, this updated review provides additional evidence supporting the use of alternative modes of ExCR delivery, including home-based and digitally-supported programmes. Future ExCR trials need to focus on the recruitment of traditionally less represented heart failure patient groups including older patients, women, and those with HFpEF.

Cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure: 'Cinderella' or evidence-based pillar of care?

Cardiac rehabilitation remains the 'Cinderella' of treatments for heart failure. This state-of-the-art review provides a contemporary update on the evidence base, clinical guidance, and status of cardiac rehabilitation delivery for patients with heart failure. Given that cardiac rehabilitation participation results in important improvements in patient outcomes, including health-related quality of life, this review argues that an exercise-based rehabilitation is a key pillar of heart failure management alongside drug and medical device provision. To drive future improvements in access and uptake, health services should offer heart failure patients a choice of evidence-based modes of rehabilitation delivery, including home, supported by digital technology, alongside traditional centre-based programmes (or combinations of modes, 'hybrid') and according to stage of disease and patient preference.

Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based and technology-supported cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation, especially during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009, 2015, and 2017. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of home-based (which may include digital/telehealth interventions) and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, exercise-capacity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) on 16 September 2022. We also searched two clinical trials registers as well as previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, sports/community centre) with home-based programmes (± digital/telehealth platforms) in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure, or who had undergone revascularisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on predefined inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third review author. Two authors independently extracted outcome data and study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included three new trials in this update, bringing a total of 24 trials that have randomised a total of 3046 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. A further nine studies were identified and are awaiting classification. Manual searching of trial registers until 16 September 2022 revealed a further 14 clinical trial registrations - these are ongoing. Participants had a history of acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation, or heart failure. Although there was little evidence of high risk of bias, a number of studies provided insufficient detail to enable assessment of potential risk of bias; in particular, details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequencing and blinding of outcome assessment were poorly reported. No evidence of a difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in our primary outcomes up to 12 months of follow-up: total mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65 to 2.16; participants = 1647; studies = 12/comparisons = 14; low-certainty evidence) or exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.10, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.04; participants = 2343; studies = 24/comparisons = 28; low-certainty evidence). The majority of evidence (N=71 / 77 comparisons of either total or domain scores) showed no significant difference in health-related quality of life up to 24 months follow-up between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Trials were generally of short duration, with only three studies reporting outcomes beyond 12 months (exercise capacity: SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.23; participants = 1074; studies = 3; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a similar level of trial completion (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.08; participants = 2638; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low-certainty evidence) between home-based and centre-based participants. The cost per patient of centre- and home-based programmes was similar. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update supports previous conclusions that home- (± digital/telehealth platforms) and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation formally supported by healthcare staff seem to be similarly effective in improving clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction, or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding supports the continued expansion of healthcare professional supervised home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes (± digital/telehealth platforms), especially important in the context of the ongoing global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic that has much limited patients in face-to-face access of hospital and community health services. Where settings are able to provide both supervised centre- and home-based programmes, consideration of the preference of the individual patient would seem appropriate. Although not included in the scope of this review, there is an increasing evidence base supporting the use of hybrid models that combine elements of both centre-based and home-based cardiac rehabilitation delivery. Further data are needed to determine: (1) whether the short-term effects of home/digital-telehealth and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation models of delivery can be confirmed in the longer term; (2) the relative clinical effectiveness and safety of home-based programmes for other heart patients, e.g. post-valve surgery and atrial fibrillation.

A pragmatic effectiveness-implementation study comparing trial evidence with routinely collected outcome data for patients receiving the REACH-HF home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure continues to be greatly underused worldwide despite being a Class I recommendation in international clinical guidelines and uptake is low in women and patients with mental health comorbidities. METHODS: Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) programme was implemented in four UK National Health Service early adopter sites ('Beacon Sites') between June 2019 and June 2020. Implementation and patient-reported outcome data were collected across sites as part of the National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation. The change in key outcomes before and after the supervised period of REACH-HF intervention across the Beacon Sites was assessed and compared to those of the intervention arm of the REACH-HF multicentre trial. RESULTS: Compared to the REACH-HF multicentre trial, patients treated at the Beacon Site were more likely to be female (33.8% vs 22.9%), older (75.6 vs 70.1), had a more severe classification of heart failure (26.5% vs 17.7%), had poorer baseline health-related quality of life (MLHFQ score 36.1 vs 31.4), were more depressed (HADS score 6.4 vs 4.1) and anxious (HADS score 7.2 vs 4.7), and had lower exercise capacity (ISWT distance 190 m vs 274.7 m). There appeared to be a substantial heterogeneity in the implementation process across the four Beacon Sites as evidenced by the variation in levels of patient recruitment, operationalisation of the REACH-HF intervention and patient outcomes. Overall lower improvements in patient-reported outcomes at the Beacon Sites compared to the trial may reflect differences in the population studied (having higher morbidity at baseline) as well as the marked challenges in intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: The results of this study illustrate the challenges in consistently implementing an intervention (shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective in a multicentre trial) into real-world practice, especially in the midst of a global pandemic. Further research is needed to establish the real-world effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention in different populations.

The value of social practice theory for implementation science: learning from a theory-based mixed methods process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although there is trial evidence that complex interventions are effective for the self-management of heart failure, little evidence supports their effectiveness in routine practice. We used Social Practice Theory to guide a Type 1 Hybrid Trial: a mixed methods process evaluation of a complex intervention for heart failure. The objective of this paper is to explore the value of Social Practice Theory for implementation science. METHODS: Social Practice Theory informed a mixed methods process evaluation of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of a 12 week home-based intervention to optimise self-care support for people with heart failure and their caregivers - Rehabilitation EnAblement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF). Interviews were conducted with 19 people with heart failure and 17 caregivers at 4 months and 12 months after recruitment into the trial. Cases were constructed at the level of the individual, couple, facilitator and centre; and included multi-modal process and outcome data. Evaluative coding and subsequent within- and cross-case analyses enabled the development of a typology of relationships linking fidelity of intervention delivery and tailoring of content to individual needs and concerns. Social Practice Theory was used to interrogate the relationships between elements of the intervention and their implementation. RESULTS: Of 216 trial participants, 107 were randomised to the intervention (REACH-HF plus usual care). The intervention was most effective when fidelity was high and delivery was tailored to the individual's needs, but less effective when both tailoring and fidelity were low. Theory-based analysis enabled us to model complex relationships between intervention elements (competencies, materials and meanings) and social context. The findings illustrate how intervention fidelity and tailoring are contextual and how the effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention depended on both optimal alignment and implementation of these elements. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates the utility of theory-based analysis which integrates data from multiple sources to highlight contexts and circumstances in which interventions work best. Social Practice Theory provides a framework for guiding and analysing the processes by which a complex intervention is evaluated in a clinical trial, and has the potential to guide context-specific implementation strategies for clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, IISRCTN86234930 . Registered 13th November 2014.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure (HF) is a growing global health challenge. People with HF experience substantial burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous (2014) Cochrane systematic review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission among people with HF, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane Review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with HF with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction HF (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in the hospital/centre-based setting. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of people with heart failure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 29 January 2018. We also checked the bibliographies of systematic reviews and two trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared exercise-based CR interventions with six months' or longer follow-up versus a no exercise control that could include usual medical care. The study population comprised adults (> 18 years) with evidence of HF - either HFrEF or HFpEF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all identified references and rejected those that were clearly ineligible for inclusion in the review. We obtained full papers of potentially relevant trials. Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials, assessed their risk of bias, and performed GRADE analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 trials (5783 participants with HF) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 11 new trials (N = 1040), in addition to the previously identified 33 trials. Although the evidence base includes predominantly patients with HFrEF with New York Heart Association classes II and III receiving centre-based exercise-based CR programmes, a growing body of studies include patients with HFpEF and are undertaken in a home-based setting. All included studies included a no formal exercise training intervention comparator. However, a wide range of comparators were seen across studies that included active intervention (i.e. education, psychological intervention) or usual medical care alone. The overall risk of bias of included trials was low or unclear, and we downgraded results using the GRADE tool for all but one outcome.Cardiac rehabilitation may make little or no difference in all-cause mortality over the short term (≤ one year of follow-up) (27 trials, 28 comparisons (2596 participants): intervention 67/1302 (5.1%) vs control 75/1294 (5.8%); risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.21; low-quality GRADE evidence) but may improve all-cause mortality in the long term (> 12 months follow up) (6 trials/comparisons (2845 participants): intervention 244/1418 (17.2%) vs control 280/1427 (19.6%) events): RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02; high-quality evidence). Researchers provided no data on deaths due to HF. CR probably reduces overall hospital admissions in the short term (up to one year of follow-up) (21 trials, 21 comparisons (2182 participants): (intervention 180/1093 (16.5%) vs control 258/1089 (23.7%); RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.83; moderate-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 14) and may reduce HF-specific hospitalisation (14 trials, 15 comparisons (1114 participants): (intervention 40/562 (7.1%) vs control 61/552 (11.1%) RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84; low-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 25). After CR, a clinically important improvement in short-term disease-specific health-related quality of life may be evident (Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire - 17 trials, 18 comparisons (1995 participants): mean difference (MD) -7.11 points, 95% CI -10.49 to -3.73; low-quality evidence). Pooling across all studies, regardless of the HRQoL measure used, shows there may be clinically important improvement with exercise (26 trials, 29 comparisons (3833 participants); standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.60, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.39; I² = 87%; Chi² = 215.03; low-quality evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent different models of ExCR delivery: centre vs. home-based, exercise dose, exercise only vs. comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone vs aerobic plus resistance programmes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane Review provides additional randomised evidence (11 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous version (2014) of this Cochane Review. Compared to no exercise control, CR appears to have no impact on mortality in the short term (< 12 months' follow-up). Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows that CR probably reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and may reduce HF-specific hospital admissions in the short term (up to 12 months). CR may confer a clinically important improvement in health-related quality of life, although we remain uncertain about this because the evidence is of low quality. Future ExCR trials need to continue to consider the recruitment of traditionally less represented HF patient groups including older, female, and HFpEF patients, and alternative CR delivery settings including home- and using technology-based programmes.

Involving caregivers in self-management interventions for patients with heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To quantify the impact of involving caregivers in self-management interventions on health-related quality of life of patients with heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. DESIGN: Systematic review, meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Searched: Medline Ebsco, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, The British Library and ProQuest. Search time frame; January 1990-March 2018. REVIEW METHODS: Randomized controlled trials involving caregivers in self-management interventions (≥2 components) compared with usual care for patients with heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A matched sample based on publication year, geographic location and inclusion of an exercise intervention of studies not involving caregivers were identified. Primary outcome of analysis was patient health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized controlled trials (1,701 participants: 1,439 heart failure; 262 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) involving caregivers (mean age 59; 58% female) were identified. Reported patient health-related quality of life measures included; Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire, St. George's respiratory questionnaire and Short-Form-36. Compared with usual care, there was similar magnitude in mean improvement in patient health-related quality of life with self-management interventions in trials involving caregivers (SMD: 0.23, 95% confidence interval: -0.15-0.61) compared with trials without caregivers (SMD: 0.27, 0.08-0.46). CONCLUSION: Within the methodological constraints of this study, our results indicate that involving caregivers in self-management interventions does not result in additional improvement in patient health-related quality of life in heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, involvement of caregivers in intervention delivery remains an important consideration and key area of research. IMPACT: Greater understanding and awareness is needed of the methodology of caregiver engagement in intervention development and delivery and its impact on patient outcomes.

Patient education in the management of coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the single most common cause of death globally. However, with falling CHD mortality rates, an increasing number of people live with CHD and may need support to manage their symptoms and improve prognosis. Cardiac rehabilitation is a complex multifaceted intervention which aims to improve the health outcomes of people with CHD. Cardiac rehabilitation consists of three core modalities: education, exercise training and psychological support. This is an update of a Cochrane systematic review previously published in 2011, which aims to investigate the specific impact of the educational component of cardiac rehabilitation. OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the effects of patient education delivered as part of cardiac rehabilitation, compared with usual care on mortality, morbidity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and healthcare costs in patients with CHD.2. To explore the potential study level predictors of the effects of patient education in patients with CHD (e.g. individual versus group intervention, timing with respect to index cardiac event). SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane review, by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) in June 2016. Three trials registries, previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies were also searched. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: 1. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the primary interventional intent was education delivered as part of cardiac rehabilitation.2. Studies with a minimum of six-months follow-up and published in 1990 or later.3. Adults with a diagnosis of CHD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on the above inclusion criteria. One author extracted study characteristics from the included trials and assessed their risk of bias; a second review author checked data. Two independent reviewers extracted outcome data onto a standardised collection form. For dichotomous variables, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived for each outcome. Heterogeneity amongst included studies was explored qualitatively and quantitatively. Where appropriate and possible, results from included studies were combined for each outcome to give an overall estimate of treatment effect. Given the degree of clinical heterogeneity seen in participant selection, interventions and comparators across studies, we decided it was appropriate to pool studies using random-effects modelling. We planned to undertake subgroup analysis and stratified meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression to examine potential treatment effect modifiers. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the quality of the evidence and the GRADE profiler (GRADEpro GDT) to create summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review included a total of 22 trials which randomised 76,864 people with CHD to an education intervention or a 'no education' comparator. Nine new trials (8215 people) were included for this update. We judged most included studies as low risk of bias across most domains. Educational 'dose' ranged from one 40 minute face-to-face session plus a 15 minute follow-up call, to a four-week residential stay with 11 months of follow-up sessions. Control groups received usual medical care, typically consisting of referral to an outpatient cardiologist, primary care physician, or both.We found evidence of no difference in effect of education-based interventions on total mortality (13 studies, 10,075 participants; 189/5187 (3.6%) versus 222/4888 (4.6%); random effects risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.05; moderate quality evidence). Individual causes of mortality were reported rarely, and we were unable to report separate results for cardiovascular mortality or non-cardiovascular mortality. There was evidence of no difference in effect of education-based interventions on fatal and/or non fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (2 studies, 209 participants; 7/107 (6.5%) versus 12/102 (11.8%); random effects RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.48; very low quality of evidence). However, there was some evidence of a reduction with education in fatal and/or non-fatal cardiovascular events (2 studies, 310 studies; 21/152 (13.8%) versus 61/158 (38.6%); random effects RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.56; low quality evidence). There was evidence of no difference in effect of education on the rate of total revascularisations (3 studies, 456 participants; 5/228 (2.2%) versus 8/228 (3.5%); random effects RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.71; very low quality evidence) or hospitalisations (5 studies, 14,849 participants; 656/10048 (6.5%) versus 381/4801 (7.9%); random effects RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21; very low quality evidence). There was evidence of no difference between groups for all cause withdrawal (17 studies, 10,972 participants; 525/5632 (9.3%) versus 493/5340 (9.2%); random effects RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.22; low quality evidence). Although some health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domain scores were higher with education, there was no consistent evidence of superiority across all domains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no reduction in total mortality, in people who received education delivered as part of cardiac rehabilitation, compared to people in control groups (moderate quality evidence). There were no improvements in fatal or non fatal MI, total revascularisations or hospitalisations, with education. There was some evidence of a reduction in fatal and/or non-fatal cardiovascular events with education, but this was based on only two studies. There was also some evidence to suggest that education-based interventions may improve HRQoL. Our findings are supportive of current national and international clinical guidelines that cardiac rehabilitation for people with CHD should be comprehensive and include educational interventions together with exercise and psychological therapy. Further definitive research into education interventions for people with CHD is needed.

Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2015. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of home-based and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, exercise-capacity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease. SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) on 21 September 2016. We also searched two clinical trials registers as well as previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, including parallel group, cross-over or quasi-randomised designs) that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, gymnasium, sports centre) with home-based programmes in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure or who had undergone revascularisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on pre-defined inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third review author. Two authors independently extracted outcome data and study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE principles and a Summary of findings table was created. MAIN RESULTS: We included six new studies (624 participants) for this update, which now includes a total of 23 trials that randomised a total of 2890 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Participants had an acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation or heart failure. A number of studies provided insufficient detail to enable assessment of potential risk of bias, in particular, details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequencing and blinding of outcome assessment were poorly reported.No evidence of a difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in clinical primary outcomes up to 12 months of follow up: total mortality (relative risk (RR) = 1.19, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.16; participants = 1505; studies = 11/comparisons = 13; very low quality evidence), exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.13, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.02; participants = 2255; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence), or health-related quality of life up to 24 months (not estimable). Trials were generally of short duration, with only three studies reporting outcomes beyond 12 months (exercise capacity: SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.23; participants = 1074; studies = 3; moderate quality evidence). However, there was evidence of marginally higher levels of programme completion (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08; participants = 2615; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence) by home-based participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update supports previous conclusions that home- and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be similarly effective in improving clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding supports the continued expansion of evidence-based, home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes. The choice of participating in a more traditional and supervised centre-based programme or a home-based programme may reflect local availability and consider the preference of the individual patient. Further data are needed to determine whether the effects of home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation reported in the included short-term trials can be confirmed in the longer term and need to consider adequately powered non-inferiority or equivalence study designs.

Caregiver presence in a home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme improves the health-related quality of life of patients with heart failure.

Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) is a home-based cardiac rehabilitation intervention designed for patients with heart failure and their caregivers. We present a pooled analysis of patients >18 years with a confirmed diagnosis of HF recruited to two REACH-HF randomized controlled trials. Where identified by patients and consented to participate, caregivers were randomly assigned with patients to receive the REACH-HF intervention plus usual care or usual care alone. Our analysis demonstrated that compared to control group, the REACH-HF group had a greater gain in their disease-specific health-related quality of life at follow-up.

Adapting an evidence-based, home cardiac rehabilitation programme for people with heart failure and their caregivers to the Danish context: DK:REACH-HF study.

AIMS: Adapting interventions with an existing evidence base offers a more efficient approach than developing a new intervention. The aim of this study was to describe the process of adapting a home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme (REACH-HF) intervention originally developed in the UK for people with heart failure (HF) to the Danish health system-the 'DK:REACH-HF' programme. METHODS AND RESULTS: We followed methodological framework for the conduct and reporting of studies adapting interventions, utilizing documentary analysis, qualitative interviews, stakeholder consultations, and mapping of the Danish policy context. Our study found broad support for the REACH-HF intervention as an alternative to existing centre-based CR. We also identified three key areas of adaptation for the Danish context. First, reduce the word count of the intervention's resources by linking to existing publicly available CR materials. Second, while retaining REACH-HF core components, adapt its content and delivery to reflect differences between Denmark and UK. Third, develop a digital version of the intervention. CONCLUSION: Using an evidence-based approach, we successfully adapted the REACH-HF intervention to the context of the Danish healthcare setting, maintaining core components of the original intervention and developing both a paper-based and digital version of the programme material. To inform scaled national implementation of the DK:REACH-HF programme, we seek to undertake a pilot study to test the adapted intervention materials feasibility and acceptability to healthcare practitioners, patients, and their caregivers and confirm the positive impact on the outcomes of HF patients and caregivers.

Home-based cardiac rehabilitation and physical activity in people with heart failure: a secondary analysis of the REACH-HF randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the impact of a home-based cardiac rehabilitation intervention (Rehabilitation Enablement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF)) on objectively assessed physical activity (PA) of patients with heart failure (HF) and explore the extent by which patient characteristics are associated with a change in PA. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of randomised controlled trial data. SETTING: Five centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 247 patients with HF (mean age 70.9±10.3 years; 28% women). INTERVENTIONS: REACH-HF versus usual care (control). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: PA was assessed over 7 days via GENEActiv triaxial accelerometer at baseline (pre-randomisation), post-intervention (4 months) and final follow-up (6-12 months). Using HF-specific intensity thresholds, intervention effects (REACH-HF vs control) on average min/day PA (inactivity, light PA and moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA)) over all days, week days and weekend days were examined using linear regression analysis. Multivariable regression was used to explore associations between baseline patient characteristics and change in PA. RESULTS: Although there was no difference between REACH-HF and control groups in 7-day PA levels post-intervention or at final follow-up, there was evidence of an increase in weekday MVPA (10.9 min/day, 95% CI: -2.94 to 24.69), light PA (26.9 min/day, 95% CI: -0.05 to 53.8) and decreased inactivity (-38.31 min/day, 95% CI: -72.1 to -4.5) in favour of REACH-HF. Baseline factors associated with an increase in PA from baseline to final follow-up were reduced MVPA, increased incremental shuttle walk test distance, increased Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety score and living with a child >18 years (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: While participation in the REACH-HF home-based cardiac rehabilitation intervention did not increase overall weekly activity, patient's behaviour patterns appeared to change with increased weekday PA levels and reduced inactivity. Baseline PA levels were highly predictive of PA change. Future focus should be on robust behavioural changes, improving overall levels of objectively assessed PA of people with HF. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN78539530 and ISRCTN86234930.

Home-based cardiac rehabilitation for people with heart failure and their caregivers: a mixed-methods analysis of the roll out an evidence-based programme in Scotland (SCOT:REACH-HF study).

AIMS: Alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) are required to improve CR access and uptake. Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) is a comprehensive home-based rehabilitation and self-management programme, facilitated by trained health professionals, for people with heart failure (HF) and their caregivers. REACH-HF was shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective in a multi-centre randomized trial. The SCOT:REACH-HF study assessed implementation of REACH-HF in routine clinical practice in NHS Scotland. METHODS AND RESULTS: A mixed-method implementation study was conducted across six regional Health Boards. Of 136 people with HF and 56 caregivers recruited, 101 people with HF and 26 caregivers provided 4-month follow-up data, after participating in the 12-week programme. Compared with baseline, REACH-HF participation resulted in substantial gains in the primary outcome of health-related quality of life, as assessed by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (mean difference: -9.8, 95% CI: -13.2 to -6.4, P < 0.001). Improvements were also seen in secondary outcomes (PROM-CR+; EQ-5D-5L; Self-Care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) domains of maintenance and symptom perception; Caregiver Contribution to Self-Care domains of symptom perception and management). Twenty qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 REACH-HF facilitators, five supporting clinicians, and four national stakeholders. Interviewees were largely positive about REACH-HF, considering it to have 'filled a gap' where centre-based CR was not an option. Key issues to support future roll-out were also identified. CONCLUSION: Our findings support wider roll-out of REACH-HF as an alternative to centre-based models, to improve CR access and uptake for people with HF.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure - 2023 Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Despite strong evidence, access to exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) remains low across global healthcare systems. We provide a contemporary update of the Cochrane review randomized trial evidence for ExCR for adults with heart failure (HF) and compare different delivery modes: centre-based, home-based (including digital support), and both (hybrid). METHODS AND RESULTS: Databases, bibliographies of previous systematic reviews and included trials, and trials registers were searched with no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials, recruiting adults with HF, assigned to either ExCR or a no-exercise control group, with follow-up of ≥6 months were included. Two review authors independently screened titles for inclusion, extracted trial and patient characteristics, outcome data, and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes of mortality, hospitalization, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were pooled across trials using meta-analysis at short-term (≤12 months) and long-term follow-up (>12 months) and stratified by delivery mode. Sixty trials (8728 participants) were included. In the short term, compared to control, ExCR did not impact all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.21), reduced all-cause hospitalization (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.86, number needed to treat: 13, 95% CI 9-22), and was associated with a clinically important improvement in HRQoL measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHF) overall score (mean difference: -7.39; 95% CI -10.30 to -4.47). Improvements in outcomes with ExCR was seen across centre, home (including digitally supported), and hybrid settings. A similar pattern of results was seen in the long term (mortality: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72-1.04; all-cause hospitalization: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.01, MLWHF: -9.59, 95% CI -17.48 to -1.50). CONCLUSIONS: To improve global suboptimal levels of uptake for HF patients, global healthcare systems need to routinely recommend ExCR and offer a choice of mode of delivery, dependent on an individual patient's level of risk and complexity.

Research priorities relating to the delivery of cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programmes: results of a modified Delphi process.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this British Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation (BACPR) research priority setting project (PSP) was to identify a top 10 list of priority research questions for cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation (CVPR). METHODS: The PSP was facilitated by the BACPR clinical study group (CSG), which integrates as part of the British Heart Foundation Clinical Research Collaborative. Following a literature review to identify unanswered research questions, modified Delphi methods were used to engage CVPR-informed expert stakeholders, patients, partners and conference delegates in ranking the relevance of research questions during three rounds of an anonymous e-survey. In the first survey, unanswered questions from the literature review were ranked and respondents proposed additional questions. In the second survey, these new questions were ranked. Prioritised questions from surveys 1 and 2 were incorporated in a third/final e-survey used to identify the top 10 list. RESULTS: From 459 responses across the global CVPR community, a final top 10 list of questions were distilled from an overall bank of 76 (61 from the current evidence base and a further 15 from respondents). These were grouped across five broad categories: access and remote delivery, exercise and physical activity, optimising programme outcomes, psychosocial health and impact of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: This PSP used a modified Delphi methodology to engage the international CVPR community to generate a top 10 list of research priorities within the field. These prioritised questions will directly inform future national and international CVPR research supported by the BACPR CSG.

The role of cardiac rehabilitation in improving cardiovascular outcomes.

Cardiac rehabilitation is a complex intervention that seeks to improve the functional capacity, wellbeing and health-related quality of life of patients with heart disease. A substantive evidence base supports cardiac rehabilitation as a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention for patients with acute coronary syndrome or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and after coronary revascularization. In this Review, we discuss the major contemporary challenges that face cardiac rehabilitation. Despite the strong recommendation in current clinical guidelines for the referral of these patient groups, global access to cardiac rehabilitation remains poor. The COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to a further reduction in access to cardiac rehabilitation. An increasing body of evidence supports home-based and technology-based models of cardiac rehabilitation as alternatives or adjuncts to traditional centre-based programmes, especially in low-income and middle-income countries, in which cardiac rehabilitation services are scarce, and scalable and affordable models are much needed. Future approaches to the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation need to align with the growing multimorbidity of an ageing population and cater to the needs of the increasing numbers of patients with cardiac disease who present with two or more chronic diseases. Future research priorities include strengthening the evidence base for cardiac rehabilitation in other indications, including heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, atrial fibrillation and congenital heart disease and after valve surgery or heart transplantation, and evaluation of the implementation of sustainable and affordable models of delivery that can improve access to cardiac rehabilitation in all income settings.

Why Do so Few People with Heart Failure Receive Cardiac Rehabilitation?

Many people with heart failure do not receive cardiac rehabilitation despite a strong evidence base attesting to its effectiveness, and national and international guideline recommendations. A more holistic approach to heart failure rehabilitation is proposed as an alternative to the predominant focus on exercise, emphasising the important role of education and psychosocial support, and acknowledging that this depends on patient need, choice and preference. An individualised, needs-led approach, exploiting the latest digital technologies when appropriate, may help fill existing gaps, improve access, uptake and completion, and ensure optimal health and wellbeing for people with heart failure and their families. Exercise, education, lifestyle change and psychosocial support should, as core elements, unless contraindicated due to medical reasons, be offered routinely to people with heart failure, but tailored to individual circumstances, such as with regard to age and frailty, and possibly for recipients of cardiac implantable electronic devices or left ventricular assist devices.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of a home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme for patients with heart failure in the NHS: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation of the Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) programme within existing cardiac rehabilitation services, and develop and refine the REACH-HF Service Delivery Guide (an implementation guide cocreated with healthcare professionals). REACH-HF is an effective and cost-effective 12-week home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme for patients with heart failure. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In 2019, four early adopter 'Beacon Sites' were set up to deliver REACH-HF to 200 patients. In 2020, 5 online REACH-HF training events were attended by 85 healthcare professionals from 45 National Health Service (NHS) teams across the UK and Ireland. DESIGN: Our mixed-methods study used in-depth semi-structured interviews and an online survey. Interviews were conducted with staff trained specifically for the Beacon Site project, identified by opportunity and snowball sampling. The online survey was later offered to subsequent NHS staff who took part in the online REACH-HF training. Normalisation Process Theory was used as a theoretical framework to guide data collection/analysis. RESULTS: Seventeen healthcare professionals working at the Beacon Sites were interviewed and 17 survey responses were received (20% response rate). The identified barriers and enablers included, among many, a lack of resources/commissioning, having interest in heart failure and working closely with the clinical heart failure team. Different implementation contexts (urban/rural), timing (during the COVID-19 pandemic) and factors outside the healthcare team/system (quality of the REACH-HF training) were observed to negatively or positively impact the implementation process. CONCLUSIONS: The findings are highly relevant to healthcare professionals involved in planning, delivering and commissioning of cardiac rehabilitation for patients with heart failure. The study's main output, a refined version of the REACH-HF Service Delivery Guide, can guide the implementation process (eg, designing new care pathways) and provide practical solutions to overcoming common implementation barriers (eg, through early identification of implementation champions).

Cardiac rehabilitation for patients with heart failure: association with readmission and mortality risk.

AIMS: To examine the temporal trends and factors associated with national cardiac rehabilitation (CR) referral and compare the risk of hospital readmission and mortality in those referred for CR versus no referral. METHODS AND RESULTS: This cohort study includes all adult patients alive 120 days from incident heart failure (HF) identified by the Danish Heart Failure Registry (n = 33 257) between 2010 and 2018. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association between CR referral and patient factors and acute all-cause hospital readmission and mortality at 1 year following HF admission. Overall, 46.7% of HF patients were referred to CR, increasing from 31.7% in 2010 to 52.2% in 2018. Several factors were associated with lower odds of CR referral: male sex [odds ratio (OR): 0.85; 95% confidence interval: 0.80-0.89], older age, unemployment, retirement, living alone, non-Danish ethnic origin, low educational level, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV vs. I (OR: 0.75; 0.60-0.95), left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, and comorbidity (stroke, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation/flutter, and diabetes). Myocardial infarction, arthritis, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, valvular surgery, NYHA class II, and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were associated with higher odds of CR referral. CR referral was associated with lower risk of acute all-cause readmission (OR: 0.92; 0.87-0.97) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.65; 0.58-0.72). CONCLUSION: Although increased over time, only one in two HF patients in Denmark were referred to CR in 2018. Strategies are needed to reduce referral disparities, focusing on subgroups of patients at highest risk of non-referral.

Process evaluation of a randomised pilot trial of home-based rehabilitation compared to usual care in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and their caregiver's.

BACKGROUND: Whilst almost 50% of heart failure (HF) patients have preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), evidence-based treatment options for this patient group remain limited. However, there is growing evidence of the potential value of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. This study reports the process evaluation of the Rehabilitation Enablement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) intervention for HFpEF patients and their caregivers conducted as part of the REACH-HFpEF pilot trial. METHODS: Process evaluation sub-study parallels to a single-centre (Tayside, Scotland) randomised controlled pilot trial with qualitative assessment of both intervention fidelity delivery and HFpEF patients' and caregivers' experiences. The REACH-HF intervention consisted of self-help manual for patients and caregivers, facilitated over 12 weeks by trained healthcare professionals. Interviews were conducted following completion of intervention in a purposeful sample of 15 HFpEF patients and seven caregivers. RESULTS: Qualitative information from the facilitator interactions and interviews identified three key themes for patients and caregivers: (1) understanding their condition, (2) emotional consequences of HF, and (3) responses to the REACH-HF intervention. Fidelity analysis found the interventions to be delivered adequately with scope for improvement in caregiver engagement. The differing professional backgrounds of REACH-HF facilitators in this study demonstrate the possibility of delivery of the intervention by healthcare staff with expertise in HF, cardiac rehabilitation, or both. CONCLUSIONS: The REACH-HF home-based facilitated intervention for HFpEF appears to be a feasible and a well-accepted model for the delivery of rehabilitation, with the potential to address key unmet needs of patients and their caregivers who are often excluded from HF and current cardiac rehabilitation programmes. Results of this study will inform a recently funded full multicentre randomised clinical trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN78539530 (date of registration 7 July 2015).