JACC. Heart failure · 2025
Center- vs Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation in Patients With Heart Failure: EXIT-HF Randomized Controlled Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеEquivalence TrialПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Schmidt Cristine, Magalhães Sandra, Gois Basilio Priscilla, Santos Cláudio, Oliveira Maria Isilda, Ferreira João Pedro, Ribeiro Fernando, Santos Mário
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite being an evidence-based intervention, the implementation of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is often unsatisfactory, especially among patients with heart failure (HF). Home-based CR can serve as an alternative to improve accessibility for patients unable to participate in center-based programs.
OBJECTIVES: The study sought to compare the clinical impact of center- vs home-based CR in HF patients.
METHODS: Single-center, parallel group, noninferiority trial, enrolling HF patients irrespective of ejection fraction. Patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio, then adjusted to a 1 center/2 home ratio during the COVID-19 pandemic, then adjusted to 12 weeks of a standard center-based (24 supervised exercise sessions) or home-based CR (4 supervised sessions plus 20 sessions at home, asynchronously monitored by telephone using wearable smartwatch data) program. The primary outcome was change in peak oxygen uptake (Vo2peak) at 12 weeks.
RESULTS: Of the 120 patients (age 62 ± 11 years, 66% men, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 36 ± 11%) who were randomized to center-based (n = 45) or home-based (n = 75) CR, 95 (79%) had complete Vo2peak data at the 12-week assessment: 34 (76%) in the center-based group and 61 (81%) in the home-based group. No significant between-group differences were found in Vo2peak change from baseline to week 12 (0.8 mL/kg/min [95% CI: 1.8 to -0.16 mL/kg/min]; P = 0.10). Additionally, no between-group differences were found for changes in the prespecified secondary outcomes: 6-minute walking distance, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores, disease-related biomarkers, and physical fitness. Exercise adherence to the CR program was similar between groups (home-based 84% vs center-based 81%).
CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary well-treated HF population, home-based CR was noninferior to the center-based program, supporting the home-based approach as an effective and feasible alternative to the traditional center-based programs. (EXercise InTervention in Heart Failure [EXIT-HF]; NCT04334603).
OBJECTIVES: The study sought to compare the clinical impact of center- vs home-based CR in HF patients.
METHODS: Single-center, parallel group, noninferiority trial, enrolling HF patients irrespective of ejection fraction. Patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio, then adjusted to a 1 center/2 home ratio during the COVID-19 pandemic, then adjusted to 12 weeks of a standard center-based (24 supervised exercise sessions) or home-based CR (4 supervised sessions plus 20 sessions at home, asynchronously monitored by telephone using wearable smartwatch data) program. The primary outcome was change in peak oxygen uptake (Vo2peak) at 12 weeks.
RESULTS: Of the 120 patients (age 62 ± 11 years, 66% men, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 36 ± 11%) who were randomized to center-based (n = 45) or home-based (n = 75) CR, 95 (79%) had complete Vo2peak data at the 12-week assessment: 34 (76%) in the center-based group and 61 (81%) in the home-based group. No significant between-group differences were found in Vo2peak change from baseline to week 12 (0.8 mL/kg/min [95% CI: 1.8 to -0.16 mL/kg/min]; P = 0.10). Additionally, no between-group differences were found for changes in the prespecified secondary outcomes: 6-minute walking distance, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores, disease-related biomarkers, and physical fitness. Exercise adherence to the CR program was similar between groups (home-based 84% vs center-based 81%).
CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary well-treated HF population, home-based CR was noninferior to the center-based program, supporting the home-based approach as an effective and feasible alternative to the traditional center-based programs. (EXercise InTervention in Heart Failure [EXIT-HF]; NCT04334603).