Are patient characteristics and modes of delivery associated with completion of cardiac rehabilitation? A national registry analysis.

AIM: To achieve effectiveness and reduce inequality in everyday cardiac rehabilitation, this study aims to compare individual patient characteristics along with completion rates to traditional and evolving modes of delivery in cardiac rehabilitation. METHOD: Patients were included from the UK National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation (NACR) database. All patients with coronary heart disease (≥18 years) between the 1st of January 2014 to 31st of December 2019 that started core rehabilitation with a recorded mode of cardiac rehabilitation delivery were eligible. Modes of delivery were divided into: centre-based, home-based, and hybrid. Logistic regression models were used to investigate association between modes of delivery and completion adjusting for patient demographics. RESULT: In total 182,722 patients had mode of delivery recorded: 72.8% centre-based, 8.3% home-based and 18.9% hybrid. The home-based mode in comparison to hybrid and centre-based had significantly higher rates of females, single, white, and unemployed patients (p < 0.001). There was a higher proportion of cardiovascular risk factors in home-based than the other modes (p < 0.001). There was a reduced likelihood of completing home-based cardiac rehabilitation compared to centre-based with an odds ratio of 0.66, (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.91) but no significant difference between hybrid and centre-based modes (odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.51). CONCLUSIONS: From large real-world data, home-based modes of delivery appear to have significantly lower levels of completion than centre-based modes. Cardiac rehabilitation programs offering home-based and hybrid delivery modes need to be structured to ensure adequacy of completion.

A randomised controlled trial of a facilitated home-based rehabilitation intervention in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and their caregivers: the REACH-HFpEF Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Home-based cardiac rehabilitation may overcome suboptimal rates of participation. The overarching aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the novel Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Hear Failure (REACH-HF) rehabilitation intervention for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and their caregivers. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were randomised 1:1 to REACH-HF intervention plus usual care (intervention group) or usual care alone (control group). REACH-HF is a home-based comprehensive self-management rehabilitation programme that comprises patient and carer manuals with supplementary tools, delivered by trained healthcare facilitators over a 12 week period. Patient outcomes were collected by blinded assessors at baseline, 3 months and 6 months postrandomisation and included health-related quality of life (primary) and psychological well-being, exercise capacity, physical activity and HF-related hospitalisation (secondary). Outcomes were also collected in caregivers.We enrolled 50 symptomatic patients with HF from Tayside, Scotland with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45% (mean age 73.9 years, 54% female, 100% white British) and 21 caregivers. Study retention (90%) and intervention uptake (92%) were excellent. At 6 months, data from 45 patients showed a potential direction of effect in favour of the intervention group, including the primary outcome of Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire total score (between-group mean difference -11.5, 95% CI -22.8 to 0.3). A total of 11 (4 intervention, 7 control) patients experienced a hospital admission over the 6 months of follow-up with 4 (control patients) of these admissions being HF-related. Improvements were seen in a number intervention caregivers' mental health and burden compared with control. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the feasibility and rationale for delivering the REACH-HF facilitated home-based rehabilitation intervention for patients with HFpEF and their caregivers and progression to a full multicentre randomised clinical trial to test its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN78539530.

Home-based cardiac rehabilitation for people with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) for heart failure compared to either usual medical care (i.e. no CR) or centre-based CR on mortality, morbidity, exercise capacity, health-related quality of life, drop out, adherence rates, and costs. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials were initially identified from previous systematic reviews of CR. We undertook updated literature searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library to December 2015. A total of 19 trials with median follow up of 3months were included - 17 comparisons of home-based CR to usual care (995 patients) and four comparing home and centre-based CR (295 patients). RESULTS: Compared to usual care, home-based CR improved VO2max (mean difference: 1.6ml/kg/min, 0.8 to 2.4) and total Minnesota Living with Quality of Life score (-3.3, -7.5 to 1.0), with no difference in mortality, hospitalisation or study drop out. Outcomes and costs were similar between home-based and centre-based CR with the exception of higher levels of trial completion in the home-based group (relative risk: 1.2, 1.0 to 1.3). CONCLUSIONS: Home-based CR results in short-term improvements in exercise capacity and health-related quality of life of heart failure patients compared to usual care. The magnitude of outcome improvement is similar to centre-based CR. Home-based CR appears to be safe with no evidence of increased risk of hospitalisation or death. These findings support the provision of home-based CR for heart failure as an evidence-based alternative to the traditional centre-based model of provision.

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 originally published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of home-based and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease. SEARCH METHODS: To update searches from the previous Cochrane review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2014), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to October week 1 2014), EMBASE (Ovid, 1980 to 2014 week 41), PsycINFO (Ovid, 1806 to October week 2 2014), and CINAHL (EBSCO, to October 2014). We checked reference lists of included trials and recent systematic reviews. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, gymnasium, sports centre) with home-based programmes in adults with myocardial infarction (MI), angina, heart failure or who had undergone revascularisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the identified trials and data were extracted by a single author and checked by a second. Authors were contacted where possible to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen trials included a total of 2172 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation following an acute MI or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This update included an additional five trials on 345 patients with heart failure. Authors of a number of included trials failed to give sufficient detail to assess their potential risk of bias, and details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequence were particularly poorly reported. In the main, no difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in outcomes up to 12 months of follow up: mortality (relative risk (RR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.47, P = 0.46, fixed-effect), cardiac events (data not poolable), exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.10, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.08, P = 0.29, random-effects), modifiable risk factors (total cholesterol: mean difference (MD) = 0.07 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.11, P = 0.47, random-effects; low density lipoprotein cholesterol: MD = -0.06 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.15, P = 0.55, random-effects; systolic blood pressure: mean difference (MD) = 0.19 mmHg, 95% CI -3.37 to 3.75, P = 0.92, random-effects; proportion of smokers at follow up (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.21, P = 0.83, fixed-effect), or health-related quality of life (not poolable). Small outcome differences in favour of centre-based participants were seen in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD = -0.07 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.03, P = 0.001, fixed-effect), and triglycerides (MD = -0.18 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.02, P = 0.03, fixed-effect, diastolic blood pressure (MD = -1.86 mmHg; 95% CI -0.76 to -2.95, P = 0.0009, fixed-effect). In contrast, in home-based participants, there was evidence of a marginally higher levels of programme completion (RR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07, P = 0.009, fixed-effect) and adherence to the programme (not poolable). No consistent difference was seen in healthcare costs between the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review supports the conclusions of the previous version of this review that home- and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be equally effective for improving the clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in low risk patients after MI or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding, together with the absence of evidence of important differences in healthcare costs between the two approaches, 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 should reflect the preference of the individual patient. Further data are needed to determine whether the effects of home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation reported in these short-term trials can be confirmed in the longer term. A number of studies failed to give sufficient detail to assess their risk of bias.

Needs of caregivers in heart failure management: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the needs of caregivers supporting a person with heart failure and to inform the development of a caregiver resource to be used as part of a home-based self-management programme. METHODS: A qualitative study informed by thematic analysis involving 26 caregivers in individual interviews or a focus group. RESULTS: Three distinct aspects of caregiver support in heart failure management were identified. Firstly, caregivers identified needs about supporting management of heart failure including: coping with the variability of heart failure symptoms, what to do in an emergency, understanding and managing medicines, providing emotional support, promoting exercise and physical activity, providing personal care, living with a cardiac device and supporting depression management. Secondly, as they make the transition to becoming a caregiver, they need to develop skills to undertake difficult discussions about the role; communicate with health professionals; manage their own mental health, well-being and sleep; and manage home and work. Thirdly, caregivers require skills to engage social support, and voluntary and formal services while recognising that the long-term future is uncertain. DISCUSSION: The identification of the needs of caregiver has been used to inform the development of a home-based heart failure intervention facilitated by a trained health care practitioner.

Exercise training for chronic heart failure (ExTraMATCH II): protocol for an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic heart failure (HF) experience a marked reduction in their exercise capacity, health-related quality of life, and life expectancy. Despite substantive evidence supporting exercise training in HF, uncertainties remain in the interpretation and understanding of this evidence base. Clinicians and healthcare providers seek definitive estimates of impact on mortality, hospitalisation and health-related quality of life, and which HF patient subgroups are likely to most benefit. The original Exercise Training Meta-Analysis for Chronic Heart Failure (ExTraMATCH) individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis conducted in 2004 will be updated by the current collaboration (ExTraMATCH II), to investigate the effects of exercise training in HF. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials have been identified from the updated 2014 Cochrane systematic review and the original ExTraMATCH IPD meta-analysis with exercise training of 3 weeks' duration or more compared with a non-exercise control and a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Particular outcomes of interest are mortality, hospitalisation and health-related quality of life plus key baseline patient demographic and clinical data. Original IPD will be requested from the authors of all eligible trials; we will check original data and compile a master dataset. IPD meta-analyses will be conducted using a one-step approach where the IPD from all studies are modelled simultaneously whilst accounting for the clustering of participants with studies. DISCUSSION: The information from ExTraMATCH II will help inform future national and international clinical and policy decision-making on the use of exercise-based interventions in HF and improve the quality, design and reporting of future trials in this field.

Exercise-based rehabilitation for heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses consistently show the positive effect of exercise-based rehabilitation for heart failure (HF) on exercise capacity; however, the direction and magnitude of effects on health-related quality of life, mortality and hospital admissions in HF remain less certain. This is an update of a Cochrane systematic review previously published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of exercise-based rehabilitation on the mortality, hospitalisation admissions, morbidity and health-related quality of life for people with HF. Review inclusion criteria were extended to consider not only HF due to reduced ejection fraction (HFREF or 'systolic HF') but also HF due to preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF or 'diastolic HF'). SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane review. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue1, 2013) from January 2008 to January 2013. We also searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and PsycINFO (Ovid) (January 2008 to January 2013). We handsearched Web of Science, bibliographies of systematic reviews and trial registers (Controlled-trials.com and Clinicaltrials.gov). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of exercise-based interventions with six months' follow-up or longer compared with a no exercise control that could include usual medical care. The study population comprised adults over 18 years and were broadened to include individuals with HFPEF in addition to HFREF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all identified references and rejected those that were clearly ineligible. We obtained full-text papers of potentially relevant trials. One review author independently extracted data from the included trials and assessed their risk of bias; a second review author checked data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 trials with 4740 people with HF predominantly with HFREF and New York Heart Association classes II and III. This latest update identified a further 14 trials. The overall risk of bias of included trials was moderate. There was no difference in pooled mortality between exercise-based rehabilitation versus no exercise control in trials with up to one-year follow-up (25 trials, 1871 participants: risk ratio (RR) 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.27, fixed-effect analysis). However, there was trend towards a reduction in mortality with exercise in trials with more than one year of follow-up (6 trials, 2845 participants: RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02, fixed-effect analysis). Compared with control, exercise training reduced the rate of overall (15 trials, 1328 participants: RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.92, fixed-effect analysis) and HF specific hospitalisation (12 trials, 1036 participants: RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80, fixed-effect analysis). Exercise also resulted in a clinically important improvement superior in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (13 trials, 1270 participants: mean difference: -5.8 points; 95% CI -9.2 to -2.4, random-effects analysis) - a disease specific health-related quality of life measure. However, levels of statistical heterogeneity across studies in this outcome were substantial. Univariate meta-regression analysis showed that these benefits were independent of the participant's age, gender, degree of left ventricular dysfunction, type of cardiac rehabilitation (exercise only vs. comprehensive rehabilitation), mean dose of exercise intervention, length of follow-up, overall risk of bias and trial publication date. Within these included studies, a small body of evidence supported exercise-based rehabilitation for HFPEF (three trials, undefined participant number) and when exclusively delivered in a home-based setting (5 trials, 521 participants). One study reported an additional mean healthcare cost in the training group compared with control of USD3227/person. Two studies indicated exercise-based rehabilitation to be a potentially cost-effective use of resources in terms of gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life-years saved. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane review supports the conclusions of the previous version of this review that, compared with no exercise control, exercise-based rehabilitation does not increase or decrease the risk of all-cause mortality in the short term (up to 12-months' follow-up) but reduces the risk of hospital admissions and confers important improvements in health-related quality of life. This update provides further evidence that exercise training may reduce mortality in the longer term and that the benefits of exercise training on appear to be consistent across participant characteristics including age, gender and HF severity. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm the small body of evidence seen in this review for the benefit of exercise in HFPEF and when exercise rehabilitation is exclusively delivered in a home-based setting.

Heart failure patients' attitudes, beliefs, expectations and experiences of self-management strategies: a qualitative synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a model of heart failure patients' attitudes, beliefs, expectations, and experiences based on published qualitative research that could influence the development of self-management strategies. METHODS: A synthesis of 19 qualitative research studies using the method of meta-ethnography. RESULTS: This synthesis offers a conceptual model of the attitudes, beliefs, and expectations of patients with heart failure. Patients experienced a sense of disruption before developing a mental model of heart failure. Patients' reactions included becoming a strategic avoider, a selective denier, a well-intentioned manager, or an advanced self-manager. Patients responded by forming self-management strategies and finally assimilated the strategies into everyday life seeking to feel safe. DISCUSSION: This conceptual model suggests that there are a range of interplaying factors that facilitate the process of developing self-management strategies. Interventions should take into account patients' concepts of heart failure and their subsequent reactions.

Patient education in the management of coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a complex multifaceted intervention consisting of three core modalities: education, exercise training and psychological support. Whilst exercise and psychological interventions for patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) have been the subject of Cochrane systematic reviews, the specific impact of the educational component of CR has not previously been investigated. OBJECTIVES: 1. Assess effects of patient education on mortality, morbidity, health-related quality of life (HRQofL) and healthcare costs in patients with CHD.2. Explore study level predictors of the effects of patient education (e.g. individual versus group intervention, timing with respect to index cardiac event). SEARCH METHODS: The following databases were searched: The Cochrane Library, (CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE, HTA, NHSEED), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost) and CINAHL (EBSCOhost). 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.2. Studies with a minimum of six-months follow-up and published in 1990 or later.3. Adults with diagnosis of CHD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected studies and extracted data. Attempts were made to contact all study authors to obtain relevant information not available in the published manuscript. For dichotomous variables, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived for each outcome. For continuous variables, mean differences and 95% CI were calculated for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs involving 68,556 subjects with CHD and follow-up from six to 60 months were found. Overall, methodological quality of included studies was moderate to good. Educational 'dose' ranged from a total of two clinic visits to a four-week residential stay with 11 months of follow-up sessions. Control groups typically received usual medical care. There was no strong evidence of an effect of education on all-cause mortality (Relative Risk (RR): 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13), cardiac morbidity (subsequent myocardial infarction RR: 0.63, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.48, revascularisation RR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.71) or hospitalisation (RR: 0.83, 95% CI:0.65 to 1.07). Whilst some HRQofL domain scores were higher with education, there was no consistent evidence of superiority across all domains. Different currencies and years studies were performed making direct comparison of healthcare costs challenging, although there is evidence to suggest education may be cost-saving by reducing subsequent healthcare utilisation.This review had insufficient power to exclude clinically important effects of education on mortality and morbidity of patients with CHD. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find strong evidence that education reduced all cause mortality, cardiac morbidity, revascularisation or hospitalisation compared to control. There was some evidence to suggest that education may improve HRQofL and reduce overall healthcare costs. Whilst our findings are generally supportive of current guidelines that CR should include not only exercise and psychological interventions, further research into education is needed.

Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: The burden of cardiovascular disease world-wide is one of great concern to patients and health care agencies alike. Traditionally centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) 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. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes compared with supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health-related quality of life and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with coronary heart disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: We updated the search of a previous review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2007, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from 2001 to January 2008. We checked reference lists and sought advice from experts. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) 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: Studies were selected independently by two reviewers, and data extracted by a single reviewer and checked by a second one. Authors were contacted where possible to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve studies (1,938 participants) met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies recruited a lower risk patient following an acute myocardial infarction (MI) and revascularisation. There was no difference in outcomes of home- versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in mortality risk ratio (RR) was1.31 (95% confidence interval (C) 0.65 to 2.66), cardiac events, exercise capacity standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.13), as well as in modifiable risk factors (systolic blood pressure; diastolic blood pressure; total cholesterol; HDL-cholesterol; LDL-cholesterol) or proportion of smokers at follow up or health-related quality of life. There was no consistent difference in the healthcare costs of the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation appear to be equally effective in improving the clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in acute MI and revascularisation patients. This finding, together with an absence of evidence of difference in healthcare costs between the two approaches, would support the extension of home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes such as the Heart Manual to give patients a choice in line with their preferences, which may have an impact on uptake of cardiac rehabilitation in the individual case.

Patient education in the contemporary management of coronary heart disease.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of patient education compared with usual care on mortality and morbidity in patients with CHD.To explore the potential study level predictors of the effects of patient education in patients with CHD.