BACKGROUND: People with heart failure experience substantial disease burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous 2018 Cochrane review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission amongst people with heart failure, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with heart failure with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with heart failure with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in a hospital or centre-based setting.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of ExCR on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of adults with heart failure.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science without language restriction on 13 December 2021. We also checked the bibliographies of included studies, identified relevant systematic reviews, and two clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ExCR interventions (either exercise only or exercise as part of a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation) with a follow-up of six months or longer versus a no-exercise control (e.g. usual medical care). The study population comprised adults (≥ 18 years) with heart failure - either HFrEF or HFpEF.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, mortality due to heart failure, all-cause hospital admissions, heart failure-related hospital admissions, and HRQoL. Secondary outcomes were costs and cost-effectiveness. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 60 trials (8728 participants) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 16 new trials (2945 new participants), in addition to the previously identified 44 trials (5783 existing participants). Although the existing evidence base predominantly includes patients with HFrEF, with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes II and III receiving centre-based ExCR programmes, a growing body of trials includes patients with HFpEF with ExCR undertaken in a home-based setting. All included trials employed a usual care comparator with a formal no-exercise intervention as well as a wide range of active comparators, such as education, psychological intervention, or medical management. The overall risk of bias in the included trials was low or unclear, and we mostly downgraded the certainty of evidence of outcomes upon GRADE assessment. There was no evidence of a difference in the short term (up to 12 months' follow-up) in the pooled risk of all-cause mortality when comparing ExCR versus usual care (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.21; absolute effects 5.0% versus 5.8%; 34 trials, 36 comparisons, 3941 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only a few trials reported information on whether participants died due to heart failure. Participation in ExCR versus usual care likely reduced the risk of all-cause hospital admissions (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; absolute effects 15.9% versus 23.8%; 23 trials, 24 comparisons, 2283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and heart failure-related hospital admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.35; absolute effects 5.6% versus 6.4%; 10 trials; 10 comparisons, 911 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) in the short term. Participation in ExCR likely improved short-term HRQoL as measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLWHF) questionnaire (lower scores indicate better HRQoL and a difference of 5 points or more indicates clinical importance; mean difference (MD) -7.39 points, 95% CI -10.30 to -4.77; 21 trials, 22 comparisons, 2699 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). When pooling HRQoL data measured by any questionnaire/scale, we found that ExCR may improve HRQoL in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (33 trials, 37 comparisons, 4769 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.34; very-low certainty evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent across different models of ExCR delivery: centre- versus home-based, exercise dose, exercise only versus comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone versus aerobic plus resistance programmes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane review provides additional randomised evidence (16 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous 2018 version of the review. Compared to no exercise control, whilst there was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality in people with heart failure, ExCR participation likely reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and heart failure-related hospital admissions, and may result in important improvements in HRQoL. Importantly, this updated review provides additional evidence supporting the use of alternative modes of ExCR delivery, including home-based and digitally-supported programmes. Future ExCR trials need to focus on the recruitment of traditionally less represented heart failure patient groups including older patients, women, and those with HFpEF.
ABSTRACT: 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 I2>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.
OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la efectividad de la rehabilitación cardiaca domiciliaria (CR) para la insuficiencia cardíaca en comparación con la atención médica habitual (es decir, sin CR) o CR centrada en el centro sobre la mortalidad, la morbilidad, la capacidad de ejercicio, la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud Las tasas de adherencia y los costos. MÉTODOS: Los ensayos controlados aleatorios fueron inicialmente identificados a partir de revisiones sistemáticas anteriores de CR. Se realizaron un total de 19 ensayos con mediana de seguimiento de 3 meses - 17 comparaciones de la CR en el hogar a la atención habitual (995 pacientes) y cuatro Comparando el hogar y CR basado en el centro (295 pacientes). RESULTADOS: En comparación con la atención habitual, la CR basada en el hogar mejoró el VO2max (diferencia de medias: 1,6 ml / kg / min, 0,8 a 2,4) y la calificación total de Minnesota Living con calidad de vida (-3,3, -7,5 a 1,0), sin diferencia En mortalidad, hospitalización o abandono del estudio. Los resultados y los costos fueron similares entre CR basados en el hogar y en el centro, con la excepción de mayores niveles de conclusión del ensayo en el grupo de origen (riesgo relativo: 1,2, 1,0 a 1,3). Conclusiones: La RC en el hogar produce mejoras a corto plazo en la capacidad de ejercicio y en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud de los pacientes con insuficiencia cardiaca en comparación con la atención habitual. La magnitud de la mejoría de los resultados es similar a la CR centrada en el centro. La RC en el hogar parece ser segura, sin evidencia de un mayor riesgo de hospitalización o muerte. Estos hallazgos apoyan la provisión de RC domiciliaria para la insuficiencia cardíaca como una alternativa basada en la evidencia al modelo tradicional de provisión basado en el centro.
OBJETIVO: Actualizar la revisión sistemática de Cochrane para la rehabilitación cardíaca (RC) basada en ejercicio para la insuficiencia cardíaca.
MÉTODOS: Se realizó una revisión sistemática y metanálisis de ensayos controlados aleatorizados. MEDLINE, EMBASE y la Biblioteca Cochrane fueron exploradas hasta Enero de 2013. Ensayos con 6 o más meses de seguimiento fueron incluidos si evaluaron los efectos de las intervenciones de ejercicio solas o como un complemento de un amplio programa de RC comparado con un control sin ejercicio.
RESULTADOS: 33 ensayos fueron incluidos con 4740 participantes predominantemente con una fracción de eyección reducida (<40%) y clase II y III de la New York Heart Association. En comparación con los controles, mientras no hubo diferencia en la mortalidad por todas las causas combinada entre RC con ejercicio con un seguimiento de 1 año (riesgo relativo (RR) 0.93; 95% IC 0.69 a 1.27, p=0.67), hubo una tendencia hacia la reducción en ensayos con un seguimiento mayor a 1 año (RR 0.88; 0.75 a 1.02, 0.09). RC con ejercicio redujo el riesgo total (RR 0.75; 0.62 a 0.92, 0.005) y hospitalización específica por insuficiencia cardíaca (RR 0.61; 0.46 a 0.80, 0.0004) y resultó en una importante mejora clínica en el cuestionario de Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (diferencia media: -5.8 puntos, -9.2 a -2.4, 0.0007). Un análisis univariado de metarregresión mostró que estos beneficios fueron independientes del tipo de dosis o ejercicio de RC, y la duración del seguimiento, calidad o fecha de la publicación.
CONCLUSIONES: Esta revisión actualizada de Cochrane muestra que las mejoras en hospitalización y calidad de vida relacionada a la salud con RC basada en ejercicio parece ser consistente entre los pacientes sin importar las características del programa de RC y puede reducir la mortalidad a largo plazo. Se necesita un metanálisis con datos de participantes individuales para proveer evidencia confirmatoria sobre la importancia de un subgrupo de pacientes y características del nivel del programa (ej, dosis de ejercicio) en el resultado.
People with heart failure experience substantial disease burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous 2018 Cochrane review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission amongst people with heart failure, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with heart failure with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with heart failure with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in a hospital or centre-based setting.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effects of ExCR on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of adults with heart failure.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science without language restriction on 13 December 2021. We also checked the bibliographies of included studies, identified relevant systematic reviews, and two clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ExCR interventions (either exercise only or exercise as part of a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation) with a follow-up of six months or longer versus a no-exercise control (e.g. usual medical care). The study population comprised adults (≥ 18 years) with heart failure - either HFrEF or HFpEF.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, mortality due to heart failure, all-cause hospital admissions, heart failure-related hospital admissions, and HRQoL. Secondary outcomes were costs and cost-effectiveness. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 60 trials (8728 participants) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 16 new trials (2945 new participants), in addition to the previously identified 44 trials (5783 existing participants). Although the existing evidence base predominantly includes patients with HFrEF, with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes II and III receiving centre-based ExCR programmes, a growing body of trials includes patients with HFpEF with ExCR undertaken in a home-based setting. All included trials employed a usual care comparator with a formal no-exercise intervention as well as a wide range of active comparators, such as education, psychological intervention, or medical management. The overall risk of bias in the included trials was low or unclear, and we mostly downgraded the certainty of evidence of outcomes upon GRADE assessment. There was no evidence of a difference in the short term (up to 12 months' follow-up) in the pooled risk of all-cause mortality when comparing ExCR versus usual care (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.21; absolute effects 5.0% versus 5.8%; 34 trials, 36 comparisons, 3941 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only a few trials reported information on whether participants died due to heart failure. Participation in ExCR versus usual care likely reduced the risk of all-cause hospital admissions (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; absolute effects 15.9% versus 23.8%; 23 trials, 24 comparisons, 2283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and heart failure-related hospital admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.35; absolute effects 5.6% versus 6.4%; 10 trials; 10 comparisons, 911 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) in the short term. Participation in ExCR likely improved short-term HRQoL as measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLWHF) questionnaire (lower scores indicate better HRQoL and a difference of 5 points or more indicates clinical importance; mean difference (MD) -7.39 points, 95% CI -10.30 to -4.77; 21 trials, 22 comparisons, 2699 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). When pooling HRQoL data measured by any questionnaire/scale, we found that ExCR may improve HRQoL in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (33 trials, 37 comparisons, 4769 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.34; very-low certainty evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent across different models of ExCR delivery: centre- versus home-based, exercise dose, exercise only versus comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone versus aerobic plus resistance programmes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
This updated Cochrane review provides additional randomised evidence (16 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous 2018 version of the review. Compared to no exercise control, whilst there was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality in people with heart failure, ExCR participation likely reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and heart failure-related hospital admissions, and may result in important improvements in HRQoL. Importantly, this updated review provides additional evidence supporting the use of alternative modes of ExCR delivery, including home-based and digitally-supported programmes. Future ExCR trials need to focus on the recruitment of traditionally less represented heart failure patient groups including older patients, women, and those with HFpEF.
