Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2020
Remote cardiac rehabilitation is a good alternative of outpatient cardiac rehabilitation in the COVID-19 era.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Nakayama Atsuko, Takayama Naoko, Kobayashi Momoko, Hyodo Kanako, Maeshima Naomi, Takayuki Fujiwara, Morita Hiroyuki, Komuro Issei
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, people need to practice social distancing in order to protect themselves from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In such stressful situations, remote cardiac rehabilitation (CR) might be a viable alternative to the outpatient CR program.
METHODS: We prospectively investigated patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) with a left ventricular ejection fraction of < 50%. As for patients who participated in the remote CR program, telephone support was provided by cardiologists and nurses who specialized in HF every 2 weeks after discharge. The emergency readmission rate within 30 days of discharge was compared among the outpatient CR, remote CR, and non-CR groups, and the EQ-5D score was compared between the outpatient CR and remote CR groups.
RESULTS: The participation rate of HF patients in our remote CR program elevated during the COVID-19 pandemic. As observed in the outpatient CR group (n = 69), the emergency readmission rate within 30 days of discharge was lower in the remote CR group (n = 30) than in the non-CR group (n = 137) (P = 0.02). The EQ-5D score was higher in the remote CR group than in the outpatient CR group (P = 0.03) 30 days after discharge.
CONCLUSIONS: Remote CR is as effective as outpatient CR for improving the short-term prognosis of patients hospitalized for heart failure post-discharge. This suggests that the remote CR program can be provided as a good alternative to the outpatient CR program.
METHODS: We prospectively investigated patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) with a left ventricular ejection fraction of < 50%. As for patients who participated in the remote CR program, telephone support was provided by cardiologists and nurses who specialized in HF every 2 weeks after discharge. The emergency readmission rate within 30 days of discharge was compared among the outpatient CR, remote CR, and non-CR groups, and the EQ-5D score was compared between the outpatient CR and remote CR groups.
RESULTS: The participation rate of HF patients in our remote CR program elevated during the COVID-19 pandemic. As observed in the outpatient CR group (n = 69), the emergency readmission rate within 30 days of discharge was lower in the remote CR group (n = 30) than in the non-CR group (n = 137) (P = 0.02). The EQ-5D score was higher in the remote CR group than in the outpatient CR group (P = 0.03) 30 days after discharge.
CONCLUSIONS: Remote CR is as effective as outpatient CR for improving the short-term prognosis of patients hospitalized for heart failure post-discharge. This suggests that the remote CR program can be provided as a good alternative to the outpatient CR program.