Scholarlink

Background <p>Cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) has emerged as an alternative to center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), but its effectiveness in improving cardiorespiratory fitness remains uncertain. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of CTR versus CBCR on maximal oxygen uptake (VO<sub>2max</sub>) in patients with CAD.</p> Methods <p>A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang, and CNKI was conducted for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Pooled mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model.</p> Results <p>Ten RCTs involving 896 patients were included. Overall, CTR was not associated with a significant difference in VO<sub>2max</sub> compared with CBCR (MD: 0.02 mL/kg/min, 95% CI: −0.71 to 0.74; <i>p</i> = 0.97; I² = 46%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings. Subgroup analyses showed consistent results across most factors. However, greater improvements were observed in studies with higher baseline VO<sub>2max</sub> (<i>p</i> for subgroup difference = 0.03) and longer follow-up (&gt; 26 weeks) (MD: 0.90 mL/kg/min, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.75; <i>p</i> for subgroup difference = 0.01). Meta-regression indicated that baseline VO<sub>2max</sub> and follow-up duration were positively associated with treatment effects. The certainty of evidence was rated as moderate due to imprecision, reflected by a pooled estimate close to null and CI crossing the line of no effect.</p> Conclusions <p>CTR provides comparable improvements in VO<sub>2max</sub> to CBCR in patients with CAD. Potential benefits may be greater in patients with higher baseline fitness and with longer follow-up, although further high-quality trials are warranted.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Effects of cardiac telerehabilitation versus center-based cardiac rehabilitation on cardiorespiratory fitness in patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月16日

查看全文
  • Xingjie Zhong,
  • Jiangqin Wu,
  • Liping Li,
  • Peiyun Feng

摘要

Background

Cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) has emerged as an alternative to center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), but its effectiveness in improving cardiorespiratory fitness remains uncertain. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of CTR versus CBCR on maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) in patients with CAD.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang, and CNKI was conducted for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Pooled mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model.

Results

Ten RCTs involving 896 patients were included. Overall, CTR was not associated with a significant difference in VO2max compared with CBCR (MD: 0.02 mL/kg/min, 95% CI: −0.71 to 0.74; p = 0.97; I² = 46%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings. Subgroup analyses showed consistent results across most factors. However, greater improvements were observed in studies with higher baseline VO2max (p for subgroup difference = 0.03) and longer follow-up (> 26 weeks) (MD: 0.90 mL/kg/min, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.75; p for subgroup difference = 0.01). Meta-regression indicated that baseline VO2max and follow-up duration were positively associated with treatment effects. The certainty of evidence was rated as moderate due to imprecision, reflected by a pooled estimate close to null and CI crossing the line of no effect.

Conclusions

CTR provides comparable improvements in VO2max to CBCR in patients with CAD. Potential benefits may be greater in patients with higher baseline fitness and with longer follow-up, although further high-quality trials are warranted.