Ann Rehabil Med. 2025 Oct;49(5):310-322. doi: 10.5535/arm.250086. Epub 2025 Oct 31.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety, and patient compliance of tele-cardiac rehabilitation (T-CR) versus center-based cardiac rehabilitation (C-CR) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). A secondary aim was to assess the effects of both interventions on quality of life (QoL) and kinesiophobia.
METHODS: This nonrandomized, patient-preference controlled trial included 40 CAD patients (83% post-myocardial infarction) at a university hospital. Participants selected either C-CR or T-CR. The four-week intervention included supervised in-hospital exercise (C-CR) or telemonitored exercise with heart rate feedback (T-CR). The primary outcome was peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak). Secondary outcomes included VO2 at ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VO2 at VAT), time to VAT, oxygen pulse, QoL, Fear of Activity in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease (Fact-CAD) scores, and exercise adherence.
RESULTS: Baseline VO2 peak was higher in the T-CR group (23.2±3.5 vs. 19.4±4.2, p=0.004). Rehabilitation improved VO2 peak (p<0.001), VO2 at VAT (p=0.004), and time to VAT (p<0.001) in both groups. Fact-CAD scores decreased (p=0.004), and QoL improved (p<0.001). However, C-CR led to greater kinesiophobia reduction (p=0.038) and slightly higher QoL improvements (p=0.05). T-CR participants completed more exercise sessions (14.9±2.9 vs. 12.0±0, p<0.001), with no serious adverse events reported.
CONCLUSION: T-CR is a safe and effective alternative to C-CR, providing similar physiological benefits. However, C-CR may be superior in reducing kinesiophobia. Future studies should assess long-term adherence and psychological outcomes in diverse populations.
PMID:41177153 | DOI:10.5535/arm.250086