INTRODUCTION: Exercise -based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) plays a critical role in coronary heart disease (CHD) management. There is heritage in the effect of exercise -based CR with different exercise programs or intervention settings. This study developed an evidence matrix that systematically assesses, organizes, and presents the available evidence regarding exercise -based CR in CHD management. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across six databases. Two reviewers screened the identified literature, extracted relevant data, and assessed the quality of the studies. An evidence -mapping framework was established to present the findings in a structured manner. Bubble charts were used to represent the included systematic reviews (SRs). The charts incorporated information, exercise prescriptions, outcome indicators, associated P -values, research quality, and the number of original studies. A descriptive analysis summarized the types of CR, intervention settings, influential factors, and adverse events. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Sixty-two SRs were included in this analysis, focusing on six exercise types in addition to assessing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cost and rehabilitation outcomes. The most commonly studied exercise types were unspecified (28 studies, 45.2%) and aerobic (11 studies, 17.7%) exercises. All -cause mortality was the most frequently reported MACE outcome (22 studies). Rehabilitation outcomes primarily centered around changes in cardiac function (135 outcomes from 39 SRs). Only 8 (12.9%) studies were rated as "high quality." No significant adverse events were observed in the intervention group. Despite some variations among the included studies, most SRs demonstrated the benefits of exercise in improving one or more MACE or rehabilitation outcomes among CHD patients. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of high -quality evidence remains relatively low. Limited evidence is available regarding the effectiveness of specific exercise types and specific populations, necessitating further evaluation.

Abstract Aims and objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of home-based cardiac telerehabilitation in patients with heart failure. Design: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials were designed and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Methods: Two researchers independently screened eligible studies. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was used to assess the risk of bias within the included studies. A fixed- or random-effects meta-analysis model was used to determine the mean difference, based on the results of the heterogeneity test. Data sources: A librarian-designed search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang databases was conducted to identify studies in English or Chinese on randomised controlled trials up to 15 August 2022. Results: A total of 2291 studies were screened. The meta-analysis included data from 16 studies representing 4557 participants. The results indicated that home-based cardiac telerehabilitation could improve heart rate, VO2 peak, 6-minute walk distance, quality of life and reduce readmission rates. No significant differences were observed in the left ventricular ejection fraction percentages between the home-based cardiac telerehabilitation and usual care groups. Compared with centre-based cardiac rehabilitation, home-based cardiac telerehabilitation showed no significant improvement in outcome indicators. Conclusion: Patients with heart failure benefit from home-based cardiac telerehabilitation intervention. With the rapid development of information and communication technology, home-based cardiac telerehabilitation has great potential and may be used as an adjunct or substitute for centre-based cardiac rehabilitation.

AIMS: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic saw the suspension of centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) and has underscored the need for home-based cardiac telerehabilitation (HBCTR) as a feasible alternative rehabilitation delivery model. Yet, the effectiveness of HBCTR as an alternative to Phase 2 CBCR is unknown. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to quantitatively appraise the effectiveness of HBCTR. METHODS AND RESULTS: PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HBCTR to Phase 2 CBCR or usual care in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Out of 1588 studies, 14 RCTs involving 2869 CHD patients were included in this review. When compared with usual care, participation in HBCTR showed significant improvement in functional capacity {6-min walking test distance [mean difference (MD) 25.58 m, 95% confidence interval (CI) 14.74-36.42]}; daily step count (MD 1.05 K, 95% CI 0.36-1.75) and exercise habits [odds ratio (OR) 2.28, 95% CI 1.30-4.00)]; depression scores (standardized MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.01) and quality of life [Short-Form mental component summary (MD 2.63, 95% CI 0.06-5.20) and physical component summary (MD 1.99, 95% CI 0.83-3.16)]. Effects on medication adherence were synthesized narratively. HBCTR and CBCR were comparably effective. CONCLUSION: In patients with CHD, HBCTR was associated with an increase in functional capacity, physical activity (PA) behaviour, and depression when compared with UC. When HBCTR was compared to CBCR, an equivalent effect on functional capacity, PA behaviour, QoL, medication adherence, smoking behaviour, physiological risk factors, depression, and cardiac-related hospitalization was observed.

BACKGROUND: There is a longstanding research-to-practice gap in the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation for patients with heart failure. Despite adequate evidence confirming that comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation can improve quality of life and decrease morbidity and mortality in heart failure patients, only a fraction of eligible patients receives it. Many studies and reviews have identified patient-level barriers that might contribute to this disparity, yet little is known about provider- and system-level influences. METHODS: A systematic review using narrative synthesis. The aims of the systematic review were to a) determine provider- and system-level barriers and enablers that affect the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure and b) juxtapose identified barriers with possible solutions reported in the literature. A comprehensive search strategy was applied to the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, EThoS and ProQuest databases. Articles were included if they were empirical, peer-reviewed, conducted in any setting, using any study design and describing factors influencing the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure patients. Data were synthesised using inductive thematic analysis and a triangulation protocol to identify convergence/contradiction between different data sources. RESULTS: Seven eligible studies were identified. Thematic analysis identified nine overarching categories of barriers and enablers which were classified into 24 and 26 themes respectively. The most prevalent categories were 'the organisation of healthcare system', 'the organisation of cardiac rehabilitation programmes', 'healthcare professional' factors and 'guidelines'. The most frequent themes included 'lack of resources: time, staff, facilities and equipment' and 'professional's knowledge, awareness and attitude'. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review identified a wide range of provider- and system-level barriers impacting the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure, along with a range of potential solutions. This information may be useful for healthcare professionals to deliver, plan or commission cardiac rehabilitation services, as well as future research.

AIMS: To evaluate the effects of eHealth cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on health outcomes of coronary heart disease patients and to identify programme design, which may lead to more effective health benefits. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis following Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, CLNAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails, PubMed and CNKI were searched over the period from 1806 to April 2019. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to examine the effect of eHealth CR on health outcomes of coronary heart disease patients. We used RevMan 5.3 for risk of bias assessment and meta-analysis and GRADE software for generating findings. RESULTS: In all, 14 trials with 1,783 participants were included. eHealth CR has significantly promoted duration of physical activity, daily steps, quality of life (QoL) and re-hospitalization. Using comparative analysis of programme design elements, including mode of delivery, intervention content, motivational strategies and social support, between the effective and ineffective eHealth CR, it was found that comprehensive empowerment strategies and follow-up care by tele-monitoring may be the crucial characteristics leading to more favourable treatment effect. CONCLUSION: eHealth CR is effective in engaging patients in active lifestyle, improving QoL and reducing re-hospitalization. Future research needs to test the effects of comprehensive CR programmes by incorporating empowerment strategies and tele-monitoring as active components. IMPACT: eHealth has been increasingly applied to increase accessibility and uptake of CR. Integrative evidence to indicate its effects on health outcomes is lacking. This review identified its positive effects on some behavioural, psychosocial and health service use outcomes. Together with insights about which programme design elements may positively shape the outcomes, this review informs the role and practice of cardiovascular nurses in promoting evidence-based eHealth CR.

BACKGROUND: Center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) can be an alternative to increase access for patients who cannot participate in CBCR. Hybrid cardiac rehabilitation (CR) combines short-term CBCR with HBCR, potentially allowing both flexibility and rigor. However, recent data comparing these initiatives have not been synthesized. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a meta-analysis to compare functional capacity and health-related quality of life (hr-QOL) outcomes in HF for (1) HBCR and usual care, (2) hybrid CR and usual care, and (3) HBCR and CBCR. A systematic search in 5 standard databases for randomized controlled trials was performed through January 31, 2019. Summary estimates were pooled using fixed- or random-effects (when I(2)>50%) meta-analyses. Standardized mean differences (95% CI) were used for distinct hr-QOL tools. We identified 31 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1791 HF participants. Among 18 studies that compared HBCR and usual care, participants in HBCR had improvement of peak oxygen uptake (2.39 mL/kg per minute; 95% CI, 0.28-4.49) and hr-QOL (16 studies; standardized mean difference: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.19-0.57). Nine RCTs that compared hybrid CR with usual care showed that hybrid CR had greater improvements in peak oxygen uptake (9.72 mL/kg per minute; 95% CI, 5.12-14.33) but not in hr-QOL (2 studies; standardized mean difference: 0.67; 95% CI, -0.20 to 1.54). Five studies comparing HBCR with CBCR showed similar improvements in functional capacity (0.0 mL/kg per minute; 95% CI, -1.93 to 1.92) and hr-QOL (4 studies; standardized mean difference: 0.11; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: HBCR and hybrid CR significantly improved functional capacity, but only HBCR improved hr-QOL over usual care. However, both are potential alternatives for patients who are not suitable for CBCR.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an evidence-based overview of the effectiveness of e-coaching as a cardiac rehabilitation program (CRP). METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, PEDro and CINAHL were searched to identify relevant RCTs. The e-coaching programs were divided into basic or complex depending on their content. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality and extracted the data. A best-evidence synthesis was used to summarize the results. RESULTS: 19 RCTs were included. Detailed descriptions of the e-coaching programs were lacking. Complex e-coaching was more effective than usual-care for physical capacity (moderate evidence for short-, and mid-term; strong evidence for long-term), for clinical status (limited evidence for short- and mid-term; moderate evidence for the long-term), and for psychosocial health (moderate evidence for short-term; strong evidence for mid-, and long-term). For basic e-coaching only limited or no evidence for effectiveness was found. CONCLUSION: Promising results were found for the effectiveness of complex e-coaching as a CRP to improve a patients' physical capacity, clinical status and psychosocial health. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The content of the e-coaching programs were not clearly described. This makes it difficult to identify which components of e-coaching are most effective and should be further developed to deliver the most optimal care for cardiac rehabilitation patients.

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is an important health problem. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs following AMI have shown to be effective in reducing mortality. We aim to systematically review the existing literature that analyzes the factors that affect participation and adherence to cardiac rehabilitation programs. We reviewed Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases from 01/01/2004 to June 2016 using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We classified the results into factors affecting participation and factors influencing adherence to CR programs. We included 29 studies, and there was a general agreement in those factors predicting participation and adherence to CR programs. These factors can be classified into person-related factors and aspects related to CR programs. Older participants, women, patients with comorbidities, unemployed and uncoupled persons, less educated people and those with lower income had a lower participation. A similar pattern was observed for CR adherence. Also, those potential participants who live farther from CR facilities, do not have transportation, or do not drive, attended less to CR programs. These factors were very similar when analyzing adherence to CR programs. These aspects were similar in Europe and the USA. These results clearly show that participation in CR programs follows a determined pattern that is very homogeneous in different settings. Health professionals should also be aware of patients reluctant to participate in CR programs and adapt their messages and redesign CR programs, to promote participation and adherence.