Search

Background: Participation in cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction is sub-optimal. Offering home-based rehabilitation may improve uptake. We report the first randomized study of cardiac rehabilitation to include patient preference., Aim: To compare the clinical effectiveness of a home-based rehabilitation with hospital-based rehabilitation after myocardial infarction and to determine whether patient choice affects clinical outcomes., Design: Pragmatic randomized controlled trial with patient preference arms., Setting: Rural South West England., Methods: Patients admitted with uncomplicated myocardial infarction were offered hospital-based rehabilitation classes over 8-10 weeks or a self-help package of six weeks' duration (the Heart Manual) supported by a nurse. Primary outcomes at 9 months were mean depression and anxiety scores on the Hospital Anxiety Depression scale, quality of life after myocardial infarction (MacNew) score and serum total cholesterol., Results: Of the 230 patients who agreed to participate, 104 (45%) consented to randomization and 126 (55%) chose their rehabilitation programme. Nine month follow-up data were available for 84/104 (81%) randomized and 100/126 (79%) preference patients. At follow-up no difference was seen in the change in mean depression scores between the randomized home and hospital-based groups (mean difference: 0; 95% confidence interval, -1.12 to 1.12) nor mean anxiety score (-0.07; -1.42 to 1.28), mean global MacNew score (0.14; -0.35 to 0.62) and mean total cholesterol levels (-0.18; -0.62 to 0.27). Neither were there any significant differences in outcomes between the preference groups., Conclusions: Home-based cardiac rehabilitation with the Heart Manual was as effective as hospital-based rehabilitation for patients after myocardial infarction. Choosing a rehabilitation programme did not significantly affect clinical outcomes.

Background: Home-based cardiac rehabilitation offers an alternative to traditional, hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation., Aim: To compare the cost effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation and hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation., Methods: 104 patients with an uncomplicated acute myocardial infarction and without major comorbidity were randomized to receive home-based rehabilitation (n=60) i.e. nurse facilitated, self-help package of 6 weeks' duration (the Heart Manual) or hospital-based rehabilitation for 8-10 weeks (n=44). Complete economic data were available in 80 patients (48 who received home-based rehabilitation and 32 who received hospital-based rehabilitation). Healthcare costs, patient costs, and quality of life (EQ-5D4.13) were assessed over the 9 months of the study., Results: The cost of running the home-based rehabilitation programme was slightly lower than that of the hospital-based programme (mean (95% confidence interval) difference - 30 pounds sterling (- 45 pounds sterling to - 12 pounds sterling) [-44 euro, -67 euro to -18 euro] per patient. The cost difference was largely the result of reduced personnel costs. Over the 9 months of the study, no significant difference was seen between the two groups in overall healthcare costs (78 pounds sterling, - 1102 pounds sterling to 1191 pounds sterling [-115 euro, -1631 euro to -1763 euro] per patient) or quality adjusted life-years (-0.06 (-0.15 to 0.02)). The lack of significant difference between home-based rehabilitation and hospital-based rehabilitation did not alter when different costs and different methods of analysis were used., Conclusions: The health gain and total healthcare costs of the present hospital-based and home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes for patients after myocardial infarction appear to be similar. These initial results require affirmation by further economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation in different settings.