Background. Cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States. It has been customary to offer individuals center-based rehabilitation programs after a cardiac event to assist and prevent further cardiac deterioration. However, home-based cardiac rehabilitation has been presented in an effort to increase access and participation.
Purpose. To determine the efficacy of home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) compared with center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR).
Methods. A literature search was conducted using CINAHL, Cochrane Systematic Database, and PubMed for articles evaluating home-based cardiac rehabilitation programs to center-based cardiac rehabilitation programs. Also, the reference lists of applicable publications were used to identify additional pertinent literature.
Results. Majority of the studies found no significant differences in outcomes in HBCR to CBCR in morbidity/mortality, adherence, rehospitalizations, cost-effectiveness, primary and secondary outcomes, and psychosocial outcomes.
Discussion. After review of studies, there was no significant data suggesting HBCR to be less effective than CBCR. Thus, HBCR is a viable option for those who may seek alternative methods to traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation to widen access, improve participation, and thus, improve cardiovascular outcomes.
With increasing morbidity and mortality related to cardiovascular health, cardiac rehabilitation plays an essential part in the secondary prevention of cardiac-related diseases. There are various well-known publications bringing light to the benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). However, in spite of the countless positive data regarding the benefits of cardiac rehabilitation, patient participation and adherence still remains poor (Thompson & Clark, 2009). Thus, home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) has been presented in an attempt to offer wider access and participation.
CR is generally indicated for those after an acute myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), stable angina, heart valve repair or replacement, heart or heart-lung transplantation, and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) (Mampuya, 2012). It is a secondary prevention approach which targets modifiable risk factors to prevent future cardiovascular related complications, address any risk factors that can lead to further coronary heart disease, and promote healthy lifestyle changes. It involves a multidisciplinary team approach consisting of doctors, nurses, dietician, case managers, and psychologists. Some of the benefits that can be seen are decrease in morbidity and mortality, improved quality of life, exercise tolerance, lipid profiles, blood pressure management, as well as psychosocial wellbeing (Blair, Corrigall, Angus, Thompson, & Leslie, 2011).
One of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States is...