Efficacy and safety of remote cardiac rehabilitation in the recovery phase of cardiovascular diseases (RecRCR study): A multicenter, nonrandomized, and interventional trial in Japan
Hidetaka Itoh,Eisuke Amiya,Takahiro Jimba,Mai Shimbo,Koichi Narita,Masanobu Taya,Toshiaki Kadokami,Takanori Yasu,Hideki Oka,Masakazu Sogawa,Hiroyoshi Yokoi,Kazuo Mizutani,Shin-Ichiro Miura,Tatsuo Tokeshi,Ayumi Date,Takahisa Noma,Daisuke Kutsuzawa,Soichiro Usui,Shigeo Sugawara,Masanori Kanazawa,Hisakuni Sekino,Miho Nishitani Yokoyama,Takahiro Okumura,Yusuke Ugata,Shinichiro Fujishima,Kagami Hirabayashi,Yuta Ishizaki,Koichiro Kuwahara,Yuko Kaji,Hiroki Shimizu,Teruyuki Koyama,Hitoshi Adachi,Yoko Kurumatani,Ryoji Taniguchi,Katsuhiko Ohori,Hirokazu Shiraishi,Takashi Hasegawa,Shigeru Makita,Issei Komuro,Yutaka Kimura,RecRCR registry investigators
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2024.101421
2024-05-17
Abstract:Backgrounds: Remote cardiac rehabilitation has proven useful in patients with cardiovascular disease; however, the methodology had not been fully validated. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of remote cardiac rehabilitation (RCR) with real-time monitoring and an ergometer using a bidirectional communication tool during the recovery phase of cardiovascular diseases. Methods: This multicenter, nonrandomized, interventional study was conducted at 29 institutions across Japan and enrolled patients with cardiovascular diseases who met indications for cardiac rehabilitation (CR) after receiving in-hospital treatment. The RCR group exercised at home using an ergometer and was monitored in real-time using interactive video and monitoring tools for 2-3 months. Educational instructions were provided concurrently through e-learning approaches. The safety of the RCR protocol and the improvement in peak oxygen consumption (VO2) were compared with those of the historical control group that participated in center-based CR. Results: Fifty-three patients from the RCR group were compared with 103 historical controls having similar background characteristics. No patients in RCR experienced significant cardiovascular complications while engaging in exercise sessions. After 2-3 months of RCR, the peak VO2 improved significantly, and the increases in the RCR group did not exhibit any significant differences compared to those in the historical controls. During follow-up, the proportion of patients whose exercise capacity increased by 10% or more was also evaluated; this finding did not indicate a statistically significant distinction between the groups. Conclusions: RCR during the recovery phase of cardiovascular diseases proved equally efficient and safe as center-based CR.