Comparison between hybrid cardiac rehabilitation and center-based cardiac rehabilitation: a noninferiority randomized
Michaël Racodon1,2, Pierre Vanhove1, Claudine Fabre3
1Clinique la Mitterie, cardiac rehabilitation, Lille, France.
Abstract:
Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a cornerstone of heart disease (HD) management, enhancing functional capacity and quality of life. Hybrid cardiac rehabilitation (hCR), combining supervised center-based sessions with synchronous, real-time telerehabilitation at home, offers an alternative to conventional CR to overcome logistical barriers such as facility limitations, distance, and pandemic-related disruptions. This randomized controlled trial evaluated the noninferiority of hCR compared to standard CR in improving functional capacity in patients with chronic heart disease, including those with stable coronary artery disease. Seventy-five participants were randomized into two groups: the CR group, with exclusively center-based sessions, and the hCR group, with synchronous tele-rehabilitation sessions at home complemented by center-based sessions. Functional capacity was assessed using cardiopulmonary exercise testing, the six-minute walk test, and the wall squat test. Both groups showed significant improvements in functional outcomes, including walking distance (six-minute walk test), strength capacity (wall squat test), and cardiopulmonary exercise testing performance ( P < 0.001). The improvements in the hCR group were statistically noninferior to those in the CR group. These findings demonstrate that hCR provides an effective alternative to conventional CR while addressing practical challenges in access to care. The hCR protocol represents a viable solution for expanding rehabilitation options without compromising outcomes, particularly for patients facing logistical constraints or during emergencies such as pandemics.
Related Concept Videos
Crossover Experiments
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.
Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies


