Future cardiology · 2026
Comparing the effectiveness of home-based and center-based cardiac rehabilitation: a randomized clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sattar Fereshteh, Taheri Marzieh, Babaee Pedram, Shirvani Ehsan, Roohafza Hamidreza, Tabesh Faezeh, Mansouri Mohammad Hadi, Hadavi Mohammadmahdi, Babak Anahita, Rouhani Sina, Sadeghi Masoumeh
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is the standard of care for patients with cardiovascular disease. However, access limitations have led to increased interest in home-based alternatives. This study aimed to compare the effects of home-based and center-based CR in an Iranian population.
METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 236 patients with cardiovascular disease were randomized to receive either home-based (n = 107) or center-based (n = 129) CR. Interventions lasted 8 weeks, with outcomes assessed at baseline and 6 months. The primary outcome was the change in exercise capacity. Secondary outcomes included exercise capacity, maximum heart rate, blood pressure (BP), lipid profile, fasting blood sugar, body mass index, and waist circumference.
RESULTS: Between-group analysis using ANCOVA, adjusting for baseline values, showed that center-based CR was significantly more effective in improving exercise capacity (11.49 ± 0.22 vs 13.65 ± 0.19, p < 0.001), systolic BP (122.08 ± 1.33 vs 116.58 ± 1.17, P = 0.005), and diastolic BP (79.83 ± 0.84 vs 74.35 ± 0.74, p < 0.001). No significant between-group differences were observed in other variables.
CONCLUSION: Both home-based and center-based CR improved exercise capacity; however, center-based CR achieved superior gains and better blood pressure control. Home-based CR may be a practical alternative when access to supervised programs is limited.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.IRCT.iridentifier:IRCT20201028049181N1.
METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 236 patients with cardiovascular disease were randomized to receive either home-based (n = 107) or center-based (n = 129) CR. Interventions lasted 8 weeks, with outcomes assessed at baseline and 6 months. The primary outcome was the change in exercise capacity. Secondary outcomes included exercise capacity, maximum heart rate, blood pressure (BP), lipid profile, fasting blood sugar, body mass index, and waist circumference.
RESULTS: Between-group analysis using ANCOVA, adjusting for baseline values, showed that center-based CR was significantly more effective in improving exercise capacity (11.49 ± 0.22 vs 13.65 ± 0.19, p < 0.001), systolic BP (122.08 ± 1.33 vs 116.58 ± 1.17, P = 0.005), and diastolic BP (79.83 ± 0.84 vs 74.35 ± 0.74, p < 0.001). No significant between-group differences were observed in other variables.
CONCLUSION: Both home-based and center-based CR improved exercise capacity; however, center-based CR achieved superior gains and better blood pressure control. Home-based CR may be a practical alternative when access to supervised programs is limited.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.IRCT.iridentifier:IRCT20201028049181N1.