Background. mHealth programs offer potential for practical and cost-effective delivery of interventions capable of reaching many individuals.Purpose. To

Objective Despite proven effectiveness, participation in traditional supervised exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (exCR) remains low. Telehealth interventions that use information and communication technologies to enable remote exCR programme delivery can overcome common access barriers while preserving clinical supervision and individualised exercise prescription. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the benefits of telehealth exCR on exercise capacity and other modifiable cardiovascular risk factors compared with traditional exCR and usual care, among patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Methods CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed and PsycINFO were searched from inception through 31 May 2015 for randomised controlled trials comparing telehealth exCR with centre-based exCR or usual care among patients with CHD. Outcomes included maximal aerobic exercise capacity, modifiable cardiovascular risk factors and exercise adherence. Results 11 trials (n=1189) met eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Physical activity level was higher following telehealth exCR than after usual care. Compared with centre-based exCR, telehealth exCR was more effective for enhancing physical activity level, exercise adherence, diastolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Telehealth and centre-based exCR were comparably effective for improving maximal aerobic exercise capacity and other modifiable cardiovascular risk factors. Conclusions Telehealth exCR appears to be at least as effective as centre-based exCR for improving modifiable cardiovascular risk factors and functional capacity, and could enhance exCR utilisation by providing additional options for patients who cannot attend centre-based exCR. Telehealth exCR must now capitalise on technological advances to provide more comprehensive, responsive and interactive interventions.

Objective: Compare the effects and costs of remotely monitored exercise-based cardiac telerehabilitation (REMOTE-CR) with centre-based programmes (CBexCR) in adults with coronary heart disease (CHD). Methods: Participants were randomised to receive 12 weeks of telerehabilitation or centre-based rehabilitation. REMOTE-CR provided individualised exercise prescription, real-time exercise monitoring/coaching and theory-based behavioural strategies via a bespoke telerehabilitation platform; CBexCR provided individualised exercise prescription and coaching via established rehabilitation clinics. Outcomes assessed at baseline, 12 and/or 24 weeks included maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O₂max, primary) modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, exercise adherence, motivation, health-related quality of life and programme delivery, hospital service utilisation and medication costs. The primary hypothesis was a non-inferior between-group difference in V̇O₂max at 12 weeks (inferiority margin=−1.25 mL/kg/min); inferiority margins were not set for secondary outcomes. Results: 162 participants (mean 61±12.7 years, 86% men) were randomised. V̇O₂ max was comparable in both groups at 12 weeks and REMOTE-CR was non-inferior to CBexCR (REMOTE-CR-CBexCR adjusted mean difference (AMD)=0.51 (95% CI −0.97 to 1.98) mL/kg/min, p=0.48). REMOTE-CR participants were less sedentary at 24 weeks (AMD=−61.5 (95% CI −117.8 to −5.3) min/day, p=0.03), while CBexCR participants had smaller waist (AMD=1.71 (95% CI 0.09 to 3.34) cm, p=0.04) and hip circumferences (AMD=1.16 (95% CI 0.06 to 2.27) cm, p=0.04) at 12 weeks. No other between-group differences were detected. Per capita programme delivery (NZD1130/GBP573 vs NZD3466/GBP1758) and medication costs (NZD331/GBP168 vs NZD605/GBP307, p=0.02) were lower for REMOTE-CR. Hospital service utilisation costs were not statistically significantly different (NZD3459/GBP1754 vs NZD5464/GBP2771, p=0.20). Conclusion: REMOTE-CR is an effective, cost-efficient alternative delivery model that could—as a complement to existing services—improve overall utilisation rates by increasing reach and satisfying unique participant preferences.

Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

Background: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a leading cause of disability and deaths worldwide. Secondary prevention, including cardiac rehabilitation (CR), is crucial to improve risk factors and to reduce disease burden and disability. Accessibility barriers contribute to underutilization of traditional center-based CR programs; therefore, alternative delivery models, including cardiac telerehabilitation (ie, delivery via mobile, smartphone, and/or web-based apps), have been tested. Experimental studies have shown cardiac telerehabilitation to be effective and cost-effective, but there is inadequate evidence about how to translate this research into routine clinical practice. Objective: This systematic review aimed to synthesize research evaluating the effectiveness of implementing cardiac telerehabilitation interventions at scale in routine clinical practice, including factors underlying successful implementation processes, and experimental research evaluating implementation-related outcomes. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Global Health databases were searched from 1990 through November 9, 2018, for studies evaluating the implementation of telerehabilitation for the self-management of CHD. Reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews were hand searched to identify additional studies. Implementation outcomes of interest included acceptability, appropriateness, adoption, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability. A narrative synthesis of results was carried out. Results: No included studies evaluated the implementation of cardiac telerehabilitation in routine clinical practice. A total of 10 studies of 2250 participants evaluated implementation outcomes, including acceptability (8/10, 80%), appropriateness (9/10, 90%), adoption (6/10, 60%), feasibility (6/10, 60%), fidelity (7/10, 70%), and implementation cost (4/10, 40%), predominantly from the participant perspective. Cardiac telerehabilitation interventions had high acceptance among the majority of participants, but technical challenges such as reliable broadband internet connectivity can impact acceptability and feasibility. Many participants considered telerehabilitation to be an appropriate alternative CR delivery model, as it was convenient, flexible, and easy to access. Participants valued interactive intervention components, such as real-time exercise monitoring and feedback as well as individualized support. The penetration and sustainability of cardiac telerehabilitation, as well as the perspectives of CR practitioners and health care organizations, have received little attention in existing cardiac telerehabilitation research. Conclusions: Experimental trials suggest that participants perceive cardiac telerehabilitation to be an acceptable and appropriate approach to improve the reach and utilization of CR, but pragmatic implementation studies are needed to understand how interventions can be sustainably translated from research into clinical practice. Addressing this gap could help realize the potential impact of telerehabilitation on CR accessibility and participation as well as person-centered, health, and economic outcomes. Trial Registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42019124254; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=124254

High blood pressure (BP) is the commonest modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, yet its monitoring remains problematic. Wearable cuffless BP devices offer potential solutions; however, little is known about their validity and utility. We aimed to systematically review the validity, features and clinical use of wearable cuffless BP devices. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, IEEE Xplore and the Cochrane Database till December 2019 for studies that reported validating cuffless BP devices. We extracted information about study characteristics, device features, validation processes, and clinical applications. Devices were classified according to their functions and features. We defined devices with a mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) biases of <5 mmHg as valid as a consensus. Our definition of validity did not include assessment of device measurement precision, which is assessed by standard deviation of the mean difference- a critical component of ISO protocol validation criteria. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to summarise the mean biases for systolic and diastolic BP across studies. Of the 430 studies identified, 16 studies (15 devices, 974 participants) were selected. The majority of devices (81.3%) used photoplethysmography to estimate BP against a reference device; other technologies included tonometry, auscultation and electrocardiogram. In addition to BP and heart rate, some devices also measured night-time BP (n=5), sleep monitoring (n=3), oxygen saturation (n=3), temperature (n=2) and electrocardiogram (n=3). Eight devices showed mean biases of <5 mmHg for SBP and DBP compared to a reference device and three devices were commercially available. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the wearable and reference devices for SBP (pooled mean difference=3.42 mmHg, 95%CI -2.17, 9.01, I² 95.4%) and DBP (pooled mean=1.16 mmHg, 95%CI -1.26, 3.58, I² 87.1%). Several cuffless BP devices are currently available using different technologies, offering the potential for continuous BP monitoring. The variation in standards and validation protocols limited the comparability of findings across studies and the identification of the most accurate device. Challenges such as validation using standard protocols and in real-life settings must be overcome before they can be recommended for uptake into clinical practice.