Kardiologia polska · 2018
Hybrid versus traditional cardiac rehabilitation models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Wu Congyin, Li Yan, Chen Juan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The common drawbacks of standard cardiac rehabilitation (CR) models include low participation rate, high cost, and dependence on on-site exercise sessions. Therefore, hybrid CR protocols have been developed.
AIM: We aimed to test whether hybrid CR models are superior or equivalent to the traditional CR models in patients after myocardial infarction, heart failure, and cardiac surgery, using a meta-analysis framework.
METHODS: Data from relevant original studies indexed in the Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science data-bases were extracted and analysed. The standardised mean difference (SMD) was used as a summary effect estimate, along with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: Based on data from 1195 patients, the summary effect size showed similar improvement in functional capacity in hybrid and standard CR programmes (SMD = -0.04, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.09, p = 0.51). No significant difference was detected between the two models in terms of changes in exercise duration (SMD = -0.14, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.24, p = 0.47), systolic (SMD = -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.12, p = 0.91), and diastolic (SMD = -0.03, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.11, p = 0.7) blood pres-sure, or health-related quality of life (SMD = -0.08, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.07, p = 0.27). In terms of blood lipids, no significant difference was noted between hybrid and traditional CR models in all assessed lipid profile parameters, except for triglycerides (favouring the traditional CR model).
CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid CR protocols showed comparable efficacy to the traditional model. Further well-designed studies are required to validate these findings, especially regarding the long-term outcomes.
AIM: We aimed to test whether hybrid CR models are superior or equivalent to the traditional CR models in patients after myocardial infarction, heart failure, and cardiac surgery, using a meta-analysis framework.
METHODS: Data from relevant original studies indexed in the Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science data-bases were extracted and analysed. The standardised mean difference (SMD) was used as a summary effect estimate, along with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: Based on data from 1195 patients, the summary effect size showed similar improvement in functional capacity in hybrid and standard CR programmes (SMD = -0.04, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.09, p = 0.51). No significant difference was detected between the two models in terms of changes in exercise duration (SMD = -0.14, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.24, p = 0.47), systolic (SMD = -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.12, p = 0.91), and diastolic (SMD = -0.03, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.11, p = 0.7) blood pres-sure, or health-related quality of life (SMD = -0.08, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.07, p = 0.27). In terms of blood lipids, no significant difference was noted between hybrid and traditional CR models in all assessed lipid profile parameters, except for triglycerides (favouring the traditional CR model).
CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid CR protocols showed comparable efficacy to the traditional model. Further well-designed studies are required to validate these findings, especially regarding the long-term outcomes.