Effectiveness of a Hybrid Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.
Pamela Tanguay, Nicole Marquis, Monique Dufour Doiron et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This nine-centre pragmatic randomised controlled trial compared hybrid with traditional cardiac rehabilitation in participants enrolled in cardiac rehabilitation. Traditional rehabilitation provided in-centre exercise twice weekly for 12 weeks; the hybrid program shifted from six weeks of in-centre sessions to progressively more home-based sessions over the next six weeks. Among 295 participants recruited, 224 completed the end-of-program assessment (76%) and 169 were assessed at six months (57%). Most outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. Both groups improved across all measured outcomes by program completion, and benefits were maintained at six months.
Key findings
- Of 295 participants recruited, 224 completed the end-of-program assessment (76%) and 169 were followed up at six months (57%).
- There were no statistically significant between-group differences for physical activity, functional capacity, anxiety, or depression; HRQoL was the exception.
- Both groups improved significantly in all measured variables between baseline and program completion.
- At six months, no significant changes or between-group differences were found, consistent with maintenance of benefits.
Why it matters
The findings suggest that a hybrid delivery model can achieve improvements similar to traditional in-centre cardiac rehabilitation across most measured outcomes, with benefits maintained at six months. This is relevant when considering rehabilitation delivery options, while the HRQoL difference and substantial loss to follow-up warrant attention when interpreting comparative effectiveness.
What to keep in mind
Follow-up completion was limited: 76% completed the end-of-program assessment and 57% were assessed at six months. The abstract does not report the direction or magnitude of the HRQoL difference.