Cristine Schmidt, Sandra Magalhães, Priscilla Gois Basilio, Cláudio Santos, Maria Isilda Oliveira, João Pedro Ferreira, Fernando Ribeiro, Mário Santos
{"title":"Center- vs Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation in Patients With Heart Failure: EXIT-HF Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Cristine Schmidt, Sandra Magalhães, Priscilla Gois Basilio, Cláudio Santos, Maria Isilda Oliveira, João Pedro Ferreira, Fernando Ribeiro, Mário Santos","doi":"10.1016/j.jchf.2024.09.024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite being an evidence-based intervention, the implementation of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is often unsatisfactory, especially among patients with heart failure (HF). Home-based CR can serve as an alternative to improve accessibility for patients unable to participate in center-based programs.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The study sought to compare the clinical impact of center- vs home-based CR in HF patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Single-center, parallel group, noninferiority trial, enrolling HF patients irrespective of ejection fraction. Patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio, then adjusted to a 1 center/2 home ratio during the COVID-19 pandemic, then adjusted to 12 weeks of a standard center-based (24 supervised exercise sessions) or home-based CR (4 supervised sessions plus 20 sessions at home, asynchronously monitored by telephone using wearable smartwatch data) program. The primary outcome was change in peak oxygen uptake (Vo<sub>2</sub>peak) at 12 weeks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 120 patients (age 62 ± 11 years, 66% men, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 36 ± 11%) who were randomized to center-based (n = 45) or home-based (n = 75) CR, 95 (79%) had complete Vo<sub>2</sub>peak data at the 12-week assessment: 34 (76%) in the center-based group and 61 (81%) in the home-based group. No significant between-group differences were found in Vo<sub>2</sub>peak change from baseline to week 12 (0.8 mL/kg/min [95% CI: 1.8 to -0.16 mL/kg/min]; P = 0.10). Additionally, no between-group differences were found for changes in the prespecified secondary outcomes: 6-minute walking distance, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores, disease-related biomarkers, and physical fitness. Exercise adherence to the CR program was similar between groups (home-based 84% vs center-based 81%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a contemporary well-treated HF population, home-based CR was noninferior to the center-based program, supporting the home-based approach as an effective and feasible alternative to the traditional center-based programs. (EXercise InTervention in Heart Failure [EXIT-HF]; NCT04334603).</p>","PeriodicalId":14687,"journal":{"name":"JACC. Heart failure","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JACC. Heart failure","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2024.09.024","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Despite being an evidence-based intervention, the implementation of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is often unsatisfactory, especially among patients with heart failure (HF). Home-based CR can serve as an alternative to improve accessibility for patients unable to participate in center-based programs.
Objectives: The study sought to compare the clinical impact of center- vs home-based CR in HF patients.
Methods: Single-center, parallel group, noninferiority trial, enrolling HF patients irrespective of ejection fraction. Patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio, then adjusted to a 1 center/2 home ratio during the COVID-19 pandemic, then adjusted to 12 weeks of a standard center-based (24 supervised exercise sessions) or home-based CR (4 supervised sessions plus 20 sessions at home, asynchronously monitored by telephone using wearable smartwatch data) program. The primary outcome was change in peak oxygen uptake (Vo2peak) at 12 weeks.
Results: Of the 120 patients (age 62 ± 11 years, 66% men, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 36 ± 11%) who were randomized to center-based (n = 45) or home-based (n = 75) CR, 95 (79%) had complete Vo2peak data at the 12-week assessment: 34 (76%) in the center-based group and 61 (81%) in the home-based group. No significant between-group differences were found in Vo2peak change from baseline to week 12 (0.8 mL/kg/min [95% CI: 1.8 to -0.16 mL/kg/min]; P = 0.10). Additionally, no between-group differences were found for changes in the prespecified secondary outcomes: 6-minute walking distance, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores, disease-related biomarkers, and physical fitness. Exercise adherence to the CR program was similar between groups (home-based 84% vs center-based 81%).
Conclusions: In a contemporary well-treated HF population, home-based CR was noninferior to the center-based program, supporting the home-based approach as an effective and feasible alternative to the traditional center-based programs. (EXercise InTervention in Heart Failure [EXIT-HF]; NCT04334603).
期刊介绍:
JACC: Heart Failure publishes crucial findings on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and care of heart failure patients. The goal is to enhance understanding through timely scientific communication on disease, clinical trials, outcomes, and therapeutic advances. The Journal fosters interdisciplinary connections with neuroscience, pulmonary medicine, nephrology, electrophysiology, and surgery related to heart failure. It also covers articles on pharmacogenetics, biomarkers, and metabolomics.