Effectiveness of a Home-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program in Veterans.

Purpose: This study examined the effectiveness and safety of a home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (HBPR) program in Veterans. Methods: Patients were evaluated from five Veteran Affairs facilities that enrolled in the 12-week program. Pre- to postchanges were completed on clinical outcomes using paired t-tests and the Wilcoxon signed rank sum test. Descriptive statistics were used for patient demographics, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations. Results: Two hundred eighty-five patients with a mean age of 69.6 ± 8.3 years enrolled in the HBPR program from October 2018 to March 2020. There was a 62% (n = 176) completion rate of both pre- and post assessments. Significant improvements were detected after completion of the HBPR program in dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council: 3.1 ± 1.1 vs. 1.9 ± 1.1; p < 0.0001); exercise capacity (six-minute walk distance: 263.1 m ± 96.6 m vs. 311.0 m ± 103.6 m; p < 0.0001; Duke Activity Status Index: 13.8 ± 9.6 vs. 20.0 ± 12.7; p < 0.0001; self-reported steps per day: 1514.5 ± 1360.4 vs. 3033.8 ± 2716.2; p < 0.0001); depression (patient health questionnaire-9: 8.3 ± 5.7 vs. 6.4 ± 5.1); nutrition habits (rate your plate, heart: 45.3 ± 9.0 vs. 48.9 ± 9.2; p < 0.0001); multicomponent assessment tools (BODE Index: 5.1 ± 2.5 vs. 3.4 ± 2.4; p < 0.0001), GOLD ABCD Assessment: p < 0.0009); and quality of life (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test: 25.4 ± 7.7 vs. 18.7 ± 8.5; p < 0.0001). No adverse events were reported due to participation in HBPR. Conclusions: The HBPR program is a safe and effective model and provides an additional option to address the gap in pulmonary rehabilitation access and utilization in the Veterans Affairs.

Cardiovascular Outcomes of Patients Referred to Home Based Cardiac Rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Home Based Cardiac Rehabilitation (HBCR) has been considered a reasonable alternative to Center-based Cardiac Rehabilitation (CBCR) in patients with established cardiovascular disease, especially in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic. However, the long-term cardiovascular outcomes of patients referred to HBCR remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of patients who were referred and attended HBCR vs patients referred but did not attend HBCR (Non-HBCR). METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 269 patients referred to HBCR at Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center (PVAMC). From November 2017 to March 2020, 427 patients were eligible and referred for Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) at PVAMC. Of total patients, 158 patients were referred to CBCR and 269 patients to HBCR based on patient and/or clinician preference. The analysis of outcomes was focused on HBCR patients. We compared outcomes of patients who were referred and attended HBCR vs patients referred but did not attend HBCR (Non-HBCR) from 3 to 12 months of the referral date. HBCR consisted of face-to-face entry exam with exercise prescription, weekly phone calls for education and exercise monitoring, with adjustments where applicable, for 12-weeks and an exit exam. Primary outcome was composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalizations. Secondary outcomes were all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations, separately. We used cox proportional methods to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI. We adjusted for imbalanced characteristics at baseline: smoking, left ventricular ejection fraction and CABG status. RESULTS: A total of 269 patients (mean age: 72, 98% Male) were referred to HBCR, however, only 157 (58%) patients attended HBCR. The primary outcome occurred in 30 patients (19.1%) in the HBCR group and 30 patients (30%) in the Non-HBCR group (adjusted HR=0.56, CI 0.33-0.95, P=.03). All-cause mortality occurred in 6.4% of patients in the HBCR group and 13% patients in the Non-HBCR group 3 to 12 months after HBCR referral (adjusted HR=0.43, CI 0.18-1.0, P= .05). There was no difference in cardiovascular hospitalizations (HBCR: 5.7% vs Non-HBCR: 10%, adjusted HR 0.57, CI 0.22-1.4, P= .23) or all cause hospitalizations at 3 to 12 months between the groups (HBCR: 12.7% vs Non-HBCR: 21%, adjusted HR 0.53, CI 0.28-1.01, P= .05). CONCLUSION: Completion of HBCR among referred patients was associated with a lower risk of the combined all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalizations up to 12 months. Based on the outcomes, HBCR is a reasonable option that can improve access to CR for patients who are not candidates of or cannot attend CBCR. Randomized-controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation: EXPERIENCE FROM THE VETERANS AFFAIRS.

PURPOSE: The conceptual utility of home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) is widely acknowledged. However, data substantiating its effectiveness and safety are limited. This study evaluated effectiveness and safety of the Veterans Affairs (VA) national HBCR program. METHODS: Veterans completed a 12-wk HBCR program over 18 mo at 25 geographically dispersed VA hospitals. Pre- to post-changes were compared using paired t tests. Patient satisfaction and adverse events were also summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Of the 923 Veterans with a mean age of 67.3 ± 10.6 yr enrolled in the HBCR program, 572 (62%) completed it. Findings included significant improvements in exercise capacity (6-min walk test distance: 355 vs 398 m; P < .05; Duke Activity Status Index: 27.1 vs 33.5; P < .05; self-reported steps/d: 3150 vs 4166; P < .05); depression measured by Patient Health Questionnaire (6.4 vs 4.9; P < .0001); cardiac self-efficacy (33.1 vs 39.2; P < .0001); body mass index (31.5 vs 31.1 kg/m2; P = .0001); and eating habits measured by Rate Your Plate, Heart (47.2 vs 51.1; P < .05). No safety issues were related to HBCR participation. Participants were highly satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: The VA HBCR program demonstrates strong evidence of effectiveness and safety to a wide range of patients, including those with high clinical complexity and risk. HBCR provides an adjunct to site-based programs and access to cardiac rehabilitation. Additional research is needed to assess long-term effects, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability of the model.

Cardiac Rehabilitation During COVID-19 Pandemic: Highlighting the Value of Home-Based Programs.

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a class I treatment for cardiovascular disease, however, underutilization of these services remains. Home-based CR (HBCR) models have been implemented as a potential solution to addressing access barriers to CR services. Home-based models have been shown to be effective, however, there continues to be large variation of protocols and minimal evidence of effectiveness in higher risk populations. In addition, lack of reimbursement models has discouraged the widespread adoption of HBCR. During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, an even greater gap in CR care has been present due to decreased availability of on-site services. The COVID-19 pandemic presents a time to highlight the value and experiences of home-based models as clinicians search for ways to continue to provide care. Continued review and standardization of HBCR models are essential to provide care for a wider range of patients and circumstances.

Creating and disseminating a home-based cardiac rehabilitation program: experience from the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs provide significant benefit for people with cardiovascular disease. Despite these benefits, such services are not universally available. We designed and evaluated a national home-based CR (HBCR) program in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The primary aim of the study was to examine barriers and facilitators associated with site-level implementation of HBCR. METHODS: This study used a convergent parallel mixed-methods design with qualitative data to analyze the process of implementation, quantitative data to determine low and high uptake of the HBCR program, and the integration of the two to determine which facilitators and barriers were associated with adoption. Data were drawn from 16 VHA facilities, and included semi-structured interviews with multiple stakeholders, document analysis, and quantitative analysis of CR program attendance codes. Qualitative data were analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research codes including three years of document analysis and 22 interviews. RESULTS: Comparing high and low uptake programs, readiness for implementation (leadership engagement, available resources, and access to knowledge and information), planning, and engaging champions and opinion leaders were key to success. High uptake sites were more likely to seek information from the external facilitator, compared to low uptake sites. There were few adaptations to the design of the program at individual sites. CONCLUSION: Consistent and supportive leadership, both clinical and administrative, are critical elements to getting HBCR programs up and running and sustaining programs over time. All sites in this study had external funding to develop their program, but high adopters both made better use of those resources and were able to leverage existing resources in the setting. These data will inform broader policy regarding use of HBCR services.

Evaluation of Feasibility of 2 Novel Heart Failure Monitoring Instruments to Facilitate Patient Recognition of Symptoms.

PURPOSE: To maintain clinical stability, patients with heart failure (HF) must recognize often subtle but clinically significant symptoms that can precede decompensation. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of 2 patient self-monitoring instruments designed to facilitate both HF symptom recognition and reporting of these symptoms to providers. Secondary goals included assessment of actions taken by patients when their symptoms indicated potential HF decompensation, changes in self-care management, and patients' perceptions of the usefulness of the instruments in symptom monitoring. METHODS: A pretest-posttest longitudinal design was used for the study. Data were collected at a Midwestern Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Participants used 2 paper-based graphs to monitor weight and dyspnea daily for 3 months. The participants were interviewed at baseline about self-care activities and, at study completion, about perceptions and use of the graphs. The Self-Care of HF Index was administered at baseline and completion to assess for changes in self-care. RESULTS: Thirty-one participants completed the study. Most participants (97%) were men, white (94%) with a mean age of 68 years (range, 45-81). At baseline, systolic ejection fraction mean was 37.6% with a range of 10% to 65%. Most participants demonstrated a willingness to use the instruments for monitoring (range of adherence, 63-84 d [75%-100% of the study period], with a mean [SD] use rate of 79.9 [6.4] d). The participants with potential exacerbations rarely took action based on the data. The use of the instruments had no significant effect on self-management behaviors during the 3-month period. The participants reported that they found the instruments helpful and would recommend them to other patients with HF. CONCLUSIONS: New strategies and instruments are needed to promote a patient-clinician partnership and actively engage patients in symptom monitoring and recognition. Easy-to-use and practical instruments for patients to monitor symptoms may lead to appropriate and accurate reporting as well as improved symptom management. Although the instruments used in this study resulted in symptom monitoring, appropriate action was not undertaken as a result of such monitoring.

Feasibility and effectiveness of remote, telephone-based delivery of cardiac rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) provides significant benefit for persons with cardiovascular disease. However, access to CR services may be limited by driving distance, costs, need for a driver, time away from work, or being a family primary caregiver. The primary aim of the project was to test the reach (i.e., patient and provider uptake), effectiveness (safety and clinical outcomes), and implementation (time and costs) of a remote telephone-based Phase 2 CR program. A secondary aim was to compare outcomes between patients attending the remote program (home-CR) and those attending an on-site program (comparison group). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Subjects were given a choice of the remote or face-to-face program. Remote CR participants (n=48) received education and assessment during 12 weekly by telephone calls. Data were compared with those for face-to-face CR program participants (n=14). Independent t tests and chi-squared tests were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Repeated-measures analysis of covariance models were used to assess differences in outcomes. Costs were analyzed using a cost-minimization analysis. RESULTS: Of 107 eligible patients, 45 refused participation, 5 dropped out, and 1 died unrelated to the study. Participants had a mean age of 64 (standard deviation 7.5) years. Remote CR participants were highly satisfied with their care and had a higher completion rate (89% of authorized sessions versus 73% of face-to-face). Costs for each program were comparable. There were no significant changes over time in any measured outcome between groups at 12 weeks except medication adherence, which decreased over time in both groups; face-to-face patients reported a greater decrease (p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to test a remote CR program in a population of older Veterans. Many hospitals do not provide comprehensive CR services on-site; thus remote CR is a viable alternative to bring services closer to the patient.