International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026
Effectiveness of home-based cardiac telerehabilitation programs in improving clinical outcomes after PCI: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Kumar Sanjeet, Venjhraj Fnu, Hageen Ahmed W, Farooq Javeria, Ram Meva, Sahil Fnu, Kumar Sandeep, Kumar Jugdesh, Umar Muhammad, Das Ravi, Jairamani Sahil, Baig Mirza Mohammad Ali, Becker Carol Wright
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Home-Based Cardiac Telerehabilitation (HBCTR) is a potential alternative to center-based programs, but its effectiveness remains unclear. This meta-analysis evaluated the impact of this treatment on clinical outcomes and patient-reported quality of life (QoL).
METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, and PubMed until September 1, 2025, for studies evaluating HBCTR versus usual care. The primary clinical outcomes were 6 min walk test (6 MWT), VO2max, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Outcomes were pooled as mean differences (MD), standardized mean differences (SMD) for QoL, and risk ratios (RR) for binary data using RevMan 5.4.1 (random-effects). Quality assessment was performed using the ROB-2 scale, and publication bias was analyzed using funnel plots.
RESULTS: Twelve studies comprising 1392 patients were included. HBCTR significantly improved 6MWT distance (MD: 18.76; 95% CI: 10.35-27.18; p < 0.0001), VO2max (MD: 3.53; 95% CI: 2.42-4.65; p < 0.00001), and LVEF (MD: 2.03; 95% CI: 0.15-3.91; p = 0.03). Significant reductions were observed in systolic blood pressure (MD: -3.09 mmHg; 95% CI: -5.50 to -0.69; p = 0.01), alongside improved medication adherence (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.08-1.43; p = 0.002). QoL outcomes showed small and inconsistent improvements, while lipid parameters, anxiety, and depression demonstrated no consistent benefit.
CONCLUSION: Compared to usual care, HBCTR improved functional capacity, systolic BP, VO2 max, LVEF, and adherence, while mental health and lipid outcomes remained inconclusive.
METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, and PubMed until September 1, 2025, for studies evaluating HBCTR versus usual care. The primary clinical outcomes were 6 min walk test (6 MWT), VO2max, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Outcomes were pooled as mean differences (MD), standardized mean differences (SMD) for QoL, and risk ratios (RR) for binary data using RevMan 5.4.1 (random-effects). Quality assessment was performed using the ROB-2 scale, and publication bias was analyzed using funnel plots.
RESULTS: Twelve studies comprising 1392 patients were included. HBCTR significantly improved 6MWT distance (MD: 18.76; 95% CI: 10.35-27.18; p < 0.0001), VO2max (MD: 3.53; 95% CI: 2.42-4.65; p < 0.00001), and LVEF (MD: 2.03; 95% CI: 0.15-3.91; p = 0.03). Significant reductions were observed in systolic blood pressure (MD: -3.09 mmHg; 95% CI: -5.50 to -0.69; p = 0.01), alongside improved medication adherence (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.08-1.43; p = 0.002). QoL outcomes showed small and inconsistent improvements, while lipid parameters, anxiety, and depression demonstrated no consistent benefit.
CONCLUSION: Compared to usual care, HBCTR improved functional capacity, systolic BP, VO2 max, LVEF, and adherence, while mental health and lipid outcomes remained inconclusive.