Search

Purpose: Asynchronous home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) is a viable alternative to center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR). However, to achieve significant functional improvement, a high level of adherence and activity must be achieved. The effectiveness of HBCR among patients who actively avoid CBCR has not been effectively investigated. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the HBCR program among patients unwilling to participate in CBCR., Methods: A randomized prospective study enrolled 45 participants to a 6-mo HBCR program and the remaining 24 were allocated to regular care. Both groups were digitally monitored for physical activity (PA) and self-reported outcomes. Change in peak oxygen uptake (VO 2peak ), the primary study outcome, was measured by the cardiopulmonary exercise test, immediately before program start and 4 mo thereafter., Results: The study included 69 patients, 81% men, aged 55.9 ±12 yr, enrolled in a 6-mo HBCR program to follow a myocardial infarction (25.4%) or coronary interventions (41.3%), heart failure hospitalization (29%), or heart transplantation (10%). Weekly aerobic exercise totaled a median of 193.2 (110.2-251.5) min (129% of set exercise goal), of which 112 (70-150) min was in the heart rate zone recommended by the exercise physiologist.After 4 mo, VO 2peak improved by 10.2% in the intervention group versus -2.7% in the control group (+2.46 ± 2.67 vs -0.72 ± 3.02 mL/kg/min; P < .001)., Conclusion: The monthly PA of patients in the HBCR versus conventional CBCR group were well within guideline recommendations, showing a significant improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness. Risk level, age, and lack of motivation at the beginning of the program did not prevent achieving goals and maintaining adherence., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: A preference-based health utility score (PROPr) can be calculated using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System domain scores. We assessed the construct validity of PROPr among patients treated with KRT (hemodialysis or kidney transplant)., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: We performed a secondary analysis of data collected in multicenter, cross-sectional studies of adults treated with KRT, recruited between April 2016 to March 2020 in Toronto, Canada. All participants provided informed consent. The outcome was the PROPr score. Coadministered outcome variables included the Short-Form Six-Domain (SF-6D) and EuroQol Five-Domain Five-Level (EQ-5D-5L) scores. Socioeconomic and clinical variables included age, sex, diabetes, eGFR, serum albumin, hemoglobin, KRT, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Construct validity was assessed through correlations between PROPr and SF-6D or EQ-5D-5L, and associations between PROPr and other exposure variables. Health-condition impact estimates (coefficients for health conditions compared with a referent category, e.g. , dialysis versus kidney transplant) were calculated using multivariable linear regression., Results: The mean (SD) age of the 524 participants was 57 (17) years, 58% were male, and 45% were White. Median (interquartile range) score was 0.39 (0.24-0.58) for PROPr, 0.69 (0.58-0.86) for SF-6D, and 0.85 (0.70-0.91) for EQ-5D-5L. Large correlations were observed between PROPr versus SF-6D (0.79; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.76 to 0.82) and EQ-5D-5L (0.71; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.75). Both PROPr and the other utility indices demonstrated health-condition impact in the expected direction. For example, the estimate for PROPr was -0.17 (95% CI, -0.13 to -0.21) for dialysis (versus kidney transplant), -0.05 (95% CI, -0.11 to 0.01; P =0.08) for kidney transplant recipients with an eGFR of <45 versus ≥45 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 , and -0.28 (95% CI, -0.22 to -0.33) for moderate/severe versus no/mild depressive symptoms., Conclusions: Our results support the validity of PROPr among patients treated with KRT., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.