Phase III impact of telerehabilitation in patients with coronary heart disease

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in coronary heart disease (CAD) has been shown to improve physical capability and health-related quality of life, reducing morbimortality. However, CR accessibility is still low and patient adherence remains poor. It has been hypothesized that using mobile applications to telemonitor exercise-based CR would increase patient adherence to CR, improving results. Hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation (HCTR) is a new concept that includes center and home interventions. Objectives Investigate the effects of HCTR program on improving physical activity, quality of life and reducing cardiovascular risk factors among patients with CAD 1 year after CR phase II. Materials and methods Longitudinal retrospective study with patients who attended phase 2 CR program (CRP) at a hospital center between august 2018-november 2020. They were divided in 2 groups: group 1 completed conventional CRP (CCRP), 12 weeks of monitored hospital physical exercise and educational sessions; group 2 participated on HCTR program (CCRP associated to a tele-monitorization platform consisting of a mobile application, MOVIDA.eros, with medical prescription of physical exercise and remote interaction). Group 2 maintained use of MOVIDA.eros on phase 3. Evaluations were performed on T0 – phase 2 onset, T1 – end of phase 2, T2 – 1 year after T1, with registration of age, gender, occupation, body mass index (BMI), exercise stress testing, echocardiogram (evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]), LDL, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, NTproBNP levels, and application of EuroQol-5D questionnaire (EQ5D), International Physical Activity Questionnaire – Short Form (IPAQ). Statistical analysis was completed through software SPSS v28. p-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results We analyzed 68 patients, 46 on group 1 and 22 on group 2. Variable analysis revealed similar group characteristics, except for age (p=0.011) and LVEF (p=0.005). There was an association between HCTR adherence and occupation (p=0.002; greater proportion of intellectual professionals on group 2). We observed a significant IPAQ (p=0.018) and EQ-5D index (p=0.034) improvement between T0 to T1 in both groups, but only in group 2 persisted till T2. In exercise stress testing, both groups revealed an increase in METs at T1 and decrease at T2, without significant differences between them. Regarding lipid profile, HbA1c, NTproBNP and BMI, both groups improved from T0 to T1 maintaining it till T2 with no differences between them, however in group 2 HDL cholesterol levels were greater and HbA1c levels were lower than group 1. In both groups, LVEF increased from T0 to T1 and from T1 to T2 in both groups, with faster and higher improvement in group 2. Conclusions HCTR outperformed CCRP improving physical activity, patient quality of life, HDL cholesterol and faster improvement of LVEF. These findings encourage the use of a mobile platform in CR.