Why the study?
Does phase II cardiac telerehabilitation improve cardiorespiratory fitness and functional capacity compared to center-based cardiac rehabilitation or usual care in adults with coronary heart disease?
Population
25 RCTs pooling 2,717 adults with coronary heart disease (CHD)
Comparison
Phase II cardiac telerehabilitation with… vs Center-based cardiac rehabilitation or usual care
Design
Meta-analysis
Follow-up
3 to 12 months
Key result
Cardiac telerehabilitation yielded similar improvements in peak VO2 compared with center-based rehabilitation (MD 1.55; 95% CI -1.60 to 4.70) and significantly greater improvements than usual care.
Authors
Loading...
CTR matches center-based CR for physical capacity; extends access options for low-participation CHD patients.
Meta-Analysis (n=2,717)
Does phase II cardiac telerehabilitation improve cardiorespiratory fitness and functional capacity compared to center-based cardiac rehabilitation or usual care in adults with coronary heart disease?
Effect estimate: MD 1.55 (95% CI -1.60 to 4.70)
p-value: p=0.168
Cardiac telerehabilitation is an effective alternative to center-based cardiac rehabilitation for improving physical capacity in patients with coronary heart disease, offering superior benefits to usual care.
Kizilkilic et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Coronary heart disease (n=2,717). Cardiac telerehabilitation vs. Center-based cardiac rehabilitation or usual care was evaluated on Cardiorespiratory fitness (peak VO2) compared with center-based cardiac rehabilitation at short-term (3 months) (MD 1.55, 95% CI -1.60 to 4.70, p=0.168). Cardiac telerehabilitation yielded similar improvements in peak VO2 compared with center-based rehabilitation (MD 1.55; 95% CI -1.60 to 4.70) and significantly greater improvements than usual care.