Evaluating the Efficacy and Impact of Home-Based Cardiac Telerehabilitation on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI): A Systematic Review
Abstract
1. Introduction
Aim
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Eligibility Criteria
2.2. Information Sources
2.3. Search Strategy
2.4. Data Selection, Collection Process, and Data Items
2.5. Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias
2.6. Effect Measures
2.7. Synthesis Methods
3. Results
3.1. Study Selection
3.2. Study Characteristics and Interventions
3.3. Study Quality Assessment and Level of Evidence
3.4. Record Included for Review
3.5. The Role of Wearable Devices
3.6. Using the Web and Smartphone Apps
3.7. Remote Home Training Program
4. Discussion
5. Limitations
6. Conclusions and Future Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
CR | cardiac rehabilitation |
PCI | percutaneous coronary intervention |
HBCTR | home-based cardiac telerehabilitation |
HRQOL | health-related quality of life |
6MWT | 6 min walking test |
CVD | cardiovascular disease |
CAD | coronary artery disease |
MET | Metabolic Equivalent of Task |
HIIT | high-intensity interval training |
MICT | moderate-intensity continuous training |
References
- Baptista, E.A.; Queiroz, B.L. Spatial Analysis of Cardiovascular Mortality and Associated Factors around the World. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaptoge, S.; Pennells, L.; De Bacquer, D.; Cooney, M.T.; Kavousi, M.; Stevens, G.; Riley, L.M.; Savin, S.; Khan, T.; Altay, S.; et al. World Health Organization Cardiovascular Disease Risk Charts: Revised Models to Estimate Risk in 21 Global Regions. Lancet Glob. Health 2019, 7, e1332–e1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shao, C.; Wang, J.; Tian, J.; Tang, Y. Coronary Artery Disease: From Mechanism to Clinical Practice. In Coronary Artery Disease: Therapeutics and Drug Discovery; Wang, M., Ed.; Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology; Springer: Singapore, 2020; Volume 1177, pp. 1–36. ISBN 978-981-15-2516-2. [Google Scholar]
- Powell-Wiley, T.M.; Baumer, Y.; Baah, F.O.; Baez, A.S.; Farmer, N.; Mahlobo, C.T.; Pita, M.A.; Potharaju, K.A.; Tamura, K.; Wallen, G.R. Social Determinants of Cardiovascular Disease. Circ. Res. 2022, 130, 782–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Neumann, F.-J.; Sousa-Uva, M.; Ahlsson, A.; Alfonso, F.; Banning, A.P.; Benedetto, U.; Byrne, R.A.; Collet, J.-P.; Falk, V.; Head, S.J.; et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization. Eur. Heart J. 2019, 40, 87–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abubakar, M.; Javed, I.; Rasool, H.F.; Raza, S.; Basavaraju, D.; Abdullah, R.M.; Ahmed, F.; Salim, S.S.; Faraz, M.A.; Hassan, K.M.; et al. Advancements in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Techniques: A Comprehensive Literature Review of Mixed Studies and Practice Guidelines. Cureus 2023, 15, e41311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, K.R.; Pina, I.L. Cardiac Rehabilitation in Older Adults: New Options. Clin. Cardiol. 2020, 43, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, R.S.; Dalal, H.M.; McDonagh, S.T.J. The Role of Cardiac Rehabilitation in Improving Cardiovascular Outcomes. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 2022, 19, 180–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myneni, P.; Bodduluri, M.; Gadde, S.T.; Nimmagadda, R.; Manvitha, M.; Valiveti, S.C.; Sahu, S.; Younas, S. Effectiveness of Cardiac Rehabilitation in Enhancing Clinical Outcomes for Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Analysis. Cureus 2024, 16, e69224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, T.M.; Pack, Q.R.; Aberegg, E.; Brewer, L.C.; Ford, Y.R.; Forman, D.E.; Gathright, E.C.; Khadanga, S.; Ozemek, C.; Thomas, R.J.; et al. Core Components of Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs: 2024 Update: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Circulation 2024, 150, e328–e347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, L.; Oldridge, N.; Thompson, D.R.; Zwisler, A.-D.; Rees, K.; Martin, N.; Taylor, R.S. Exercise-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation for Coronary Heart Disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2016, 67, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eleyan, L.; Gonnah, A.R.; Farhad, I.; Labib, A.; Varia, A.; Eleyan, A.; Almehandi, A.; Al-Naseem, A.O.; Roberts, D.H. Exercise Training in Heart Failure: Current Evidence and Future Directions. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, R.J.; Beatty, A.L.; Beckie, T.M.; Brewer, L.C.; Brown, T.M.; Forman, D.E.; Franklin, B.A.; Keteyian, S.J.; Kitzman, D.W.; Regensteiner, J.G.; et al. Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Scientific Statement From the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology. Circulation 2019, 140, E69–E89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ades, P.A.; Khadanga, S.; Savage, P.D.; Gaalema, D.E. Enhancing Participation in Cardiac Rehabilitation: Focus on Underserved Populations. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2022, 70, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Iyngkaran, P.; Appuhamilage, P.Y.; Patabandige, G.; Sarathchandra Peru Kandage, P.S.; Usmani, W.; Hanna, F. Barriers to Cardiac Rehabilitation among Patients Diagnosed with Cardiovascular Diseases—A Scoping Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bakhshayeh, S.; Sarbaz, M.; Kimiafar, K.; Vakilian, F.; Eslami, S. Barriers to Participation in Center-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs and Patients’ Attitude toward Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs. Physiother. Theory Pract. 2021, 37, 158–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sérvio, T.C.; Britto, R.R.; De Melo Ghisi, G.L.; Da Silva, L.P.; Silva, L.D.N.; Lima, M.M.O.; Pereira, D.A.G.; Grace, S.L. Barriers to Cardiac Rehabilitation Delivery in a Low-Resource Setting from the Perspective of Healthcare Administrators, Rehabilitation Providers, and Cardiac Patients. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2019, 19, 615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pepera, G.; Tribali, M.S.; Batalik, L.; Petrov, I.; Papathanasiou, J. Epidemiology, Risk Factors and Prognosis of Cardiovascular Disease in the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic Era: A Systematic Review. Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 23, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antoniou, V.; Davos, C.H.; Kapreli, E.; Batalik, L.; Panagiotakos, D.B.; Pepera, G. Effectiveness of Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation, Using Wearable Sensors, as a Multicomponent, Cutting-Edge Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeVore, A.D.; Wosik, J.; Hernandez, A.F. The Future of Wearables in Heart Failure Patients. JACC Heart Fail. 2019, 7, 922–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brouwers, R.W.M.; Scherrenberg, M.; Kemps, H.M.C.; Dendale, P.; Snoek, J.A. Cardiac Telerehabilitation: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Neth. Heart J. 2024, 32, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, W.; Liu, R.; Cheng, H.; Xu, L.; Wang, L.; He, C.; Wei, Q. Longer-Term Effects of Cardiac Telerehabilitation on Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2023, 11, e46359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lara Vargas, J.; Zarco, L.; Leyva, E.A.; Garro, K.; Zamora, I.K.; Radillo, H.; Briceno, E.; Martinez, L.; Gonzalez, M.; Morales, P.J.; et al. Impact of Phase III Cardiac Telerehabilitation on Cardiorrespiratory Fitness, Safety and Adherence in Patients with Ischemic Heart Disease. Eur. Heart J. 2024, 45, ehae666-2983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shamseer, L.; Moher, D.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A.; Prisma-P Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and Explanation. BMJ 2015, 349, g7647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Limonti, F.; Gigliotti, A.; Gravante, F.; Ramacciati, N. The Impact of Cardiac Telerehabilitation on Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI): A Systematic Review Protocol. Nurs. Rep. 2024, 14, 3984–3992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—A Web and Mobile App for Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowe, M.; Sheppard, L. A General Critical Appraisal Tool: An Evaluation of Construct Validity. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2011, 48, 1505–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Polit, D.F.; Beck, C.T. Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice, 8th ed.; Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams and Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Johanns, B.; Dinkens, A.; Moore, J. A Systematic Review Comparing Open-Book and Closed-Book Examinations: Evaluating Effects on Development of Critical Thinking Skills. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2017, 27, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowe, M.; Sheppard, L.; Campbell, A. Reliability Analysis for a Proposed Critical Appraisal Tool Demonstrated Value for Diverse Research Designs. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2012, 65, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sterne, J.A.C.; Savović, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.J.; Cheng, H.Y.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M.; et al. RoB 2: A Revised Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials. BMJ 2019, 366, l4898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sterne, J.A.; Hernán, M.A.; Reeves, B.C.; Savović, J.; Berkman, N.D.; Viswanathan, M.; Henry, D.; Altman, D.G.; Ansari, M.T.; Boutron, I.; et al. ROBINS-I: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions. BMJ 2016, 355, i4919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lao, S.S.W.; Chair, S.Y.; Wang, Q.; Leong, M.L.T. The Feasibility and Effects of Smartphone-Based Application on Cardiac Rehabilitation for Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Cardiovasc. Nurs. 2023, 39, 88–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.H.; Hur, S.H.; Sohn, J.; Lee, H.M.; Park, N.H.; Cho, Y.K.; Park, H.S.; Yoon, H.J.; Kim, H.; Nam, C.W.; et al. Impact of Home-Based Exercise Training with Wireless Monitoring on Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2013, 28, 564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.; Feng, Y.; Yu, M.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, J.; Liu, W.; Gu, W. Effects of Different Rehabilitation Modality on Cardiopulmonary Function in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome after Revascularization. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2024, 10, 1120665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yakut, H.; Dursun, H.; Felekoğlu, E.; Başkurt, A.A.; Alpaydın, A.Ö.; Özalevli, S. Effect of Home-Based High-Intensity Interval Training versus Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training in Patients with Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2022, 191, 2539–2548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Hui, Z.; Zheng, Y.; Yu, J.; Zhang, J. Efficacy of Phase II Remote Home Rehabilitation in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Contrast Media Mol. Imaging 2022, 2022, 4634769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, J.; Huang, B.; Xu, D.; Li, J.; Au, W.W. Innovative Application of a Home-Based and Remote Sensing Cardiac Rehabilitation Protocol in Chinese Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Telemed. E-Health 2019, 25, 288–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yudi, M.B.; Clark, D.J.; Tsang, D.; Jelinek, M.; Kalten, K.; Joshi, S.B.; Phan, K.; Ramchand, J.; Nasis, A.; Amerena, J.; et al. SMARTphone-Based, Early Cardiac REHABilitation in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Coron. Artery Dis. 2021, 32, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Campo, G.; Tonet, E.; Chiaranda, G.; Sella, G.; Maietti, E.; Bugani, G.; Vitali, F.; Serenelli, M.; Mazzoni, G.; Ruggiero, R.; et al. Exercise Intervention Improves Quality of Life in Older Adults after Myocardial Infarction: Randomised Clinical Trial. Heart 2020, 106, 1658–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Y.; Guo, J.; Tian, Y.; Qin, S.; Liu, X. Effect of Home-Based Cardiac Telerehabilitation in Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Randomized Controlled Trial. CIN Comput. Inform. Nurs. 2024, 42, 898–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernal-Jiménez, M.Á.; Calle, G.; Gutiérrez Barrios, A.; Gheorghe, L.L.; Cruz-Cobo, C.; Trujillo-Garrido, N.; Rodríguez-Martín, A.; Tur, J.A.; Vázquez-García, R.; Santi-Cano, M.J. Effectiveness of an Interactive mHealth App (EVITE) in Improving Lifestyle After a Coronary Event: Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR MHealth UHealth 2024, 12, e48756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dalli Peydró, E.; Sanz Sevilla, N.; Tuzón Segarra, M.T.; Miró Palau, V.; Sánchez Torrijos, J.; Cosín Sales, J. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Cardiac Telerehabilitation with a Prolonged Mobile Care Monitoring Strategy after an Acute Coronary Syndrome. Clin. Cardiol. 2022, 45, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Calvo-López, M.; Arranz Tolós, R.; Marin Expósito, J.; Gruosso, D.; Andrea, R.; Roque, M.; Falces, C.; Yago, G.; Saura Araguas, J.; Pastor, N.; et al. Cardio4Health Study, a Cardiac Telerehabilitation Pilot Program Aimed at Patients After an Ischemic Event: Cross-Sectional Study. JMIR Cardio 2023, 7, e44179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.; Ge, C.; Shi, Y.; Xu, Y.; Zhao, C.; Gao, L.; Wen, D.; Li, T.; Wang, J.; Yan, S.; et al. Chinese Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation Model Delivered by Smartphone Interaction Improves Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021, 8, 731557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, H.; Yang, H. Effect of Early Home-Based Exercise for Cardiac Rehabilitation on the Prognosis of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Am. J. Transl. Res. 2021, 13, 7839–7847. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Gu, J.; Tong, X.; Meng, S.; Xu, S.; Huang, J. Remote Cardiac Rehabilitation Program during the COVID-19 Pandemic for Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Prospective Cohort Study. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2023, 15, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.-L.; Chen, W.-L.; Ding, W.-W.; Li, X.-H.; Deng, H.-M.; Huang, Q.-B. Remote Health Management via WeChat to Improve the Quality of Life of Patients After PCI. Qual. Manag. Health Care 2024, 33, 160–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sankaran, S.; Dendale, P.; Coninx, K. Evaluating the Impact of the HeartHab App on Motivation, Physical Activity, Quality of Life, and Risk Factors of Coronary Artery Disease Patients: Multidisciplinary Crossover Study. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2019, 7, e10874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgins, J.P.T.; Thomas, J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J.; Welch, V.A. (Eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.5. Updated August 2024. Available online: https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook (accessed on 12 March 2025).
- Wang, L.; Liu, J.; Fang, H.; Wang, X. Factors Associated with Participation in Cardiac Rehabilitation in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin. Cardiol. 2023, 46, 1450–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laustsen, S.; Oestergaard, L.G.; Van Tulder, M.; Hjortdal, V.E.; Petersen, A.K. Telemonitored Exercise-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation Improves Physical Capacity and Health-Related Quality of Life. J. Telemed. Telecare 2020, 26, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rovida, S.; Bruni, A.; Pelaia, C.; Bosco, V.; Saraco, G.; Galluzzo, E.; Froio, A.; Auletta, G.; Garofalo, E.; Longhini, F. Nurse Led Protocols for Control of Glycaemia in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review. Intensive Crit. Care Nurs. 2022, 71, 103247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Categories | Description |
---|---|
Population (P) | The population included in this review was composed of individuals ≥ 18 years of age who underwent PCI after MI. |
Intervention (I) | The intervention included programs of cardiac rehabilitation conducted remotely via telemedicine or telenursing. These programs aim to provide higher flexibility, individualization, and better adherence to the rehabilitation process, as they allow the patients to comfortably follow the sessions from their own homes. |
Outcome (O) | The primary outcome of this review was health-related quality of life (HRQoL) post-rehabilitation, measured using validated tools reported in the included studies. Studies were considered eligible if HRQoL was assessed quantitatively through established measurement instruments, such as SF-36, EQ-5D, or other validated scales. The included interventions involved home-based telemedicine programs. The use of devices such as phones, tablets, or computers is required to engage in the rehabilitation process. |
Level of Evidence | Definition |
---|---|
Level I | From a systematic review/meta-analysis of all relevant random control trials (RCT’s) |
Level II | Obtained from well-designed RCT’s |
Level III | Obtained from well-designed trials without randomization (quasi-experiment) |
Level IV | From well-designed cohort or case control studies |
Level V | From systematic reviews of descriptive or qualitative studies |
Level VI | From single qualitative or descriptive studies |
Level VII | From expert opinion/committees |
Study | Randomization Process | Deviations from Intended Interventions | Missing Outcome Data | Bias in Measurement of the Outcome | Selection of the Reported Result | Overall Bias |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lao et al. [34] | Low | Low | Low | Some concerns | Low | Some concerns |
Lee et al. [35] | High | High | Low | High | High | High |
Chen W. et al. [36] | Some concerns | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Yakut et al. [37] | Some concerns | Low | Low | Some concerns | Low | Some concerns |
Li et al. [38] | Low | Low | Low | Some concerns | Low | Low |
Fang et al. [39] | Low | Low | Low | Some concerns | Low | Low |
Yudi et al. [40] | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Campo et al. [41] | Low | Low | Some concerns | Low | Low | Some concerns |
Zheng et al. [42] | Low | Low | Low | Some concerns | Low | Low |
Bernal-Jiménez et al. [43] | Some concerns | Low | Low | Some concerns | Low | Some concerns |
Dalli Peydro et al. [44] | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Study | Confounding | Selection of Participants | Classification of Interventions | Deviations from Intended Interventions | Missing Data | Measurement of Outcomes | Selection of the Reported Result | Risk of Bias |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Calvo-López et al. [45] | Moderate | Low | Low | Low | Low | Moderate | Low | Moderate |
Ma et al. [46] | Serious | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Serious |
Yu et al. [47] | Moderate | Low | Moderate | Low | Low | Moderate | Low | Moderate |
Gu et al. [48] | Moderate | Low | Low | Low | Low | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
Chen et al. [49] | Serious | Moderate | Serious | Serious | Moderate | High | Serious | Serious |
Sankaran et al. [50] | Moderate | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
N | Country | Reference | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Total | % | Type of Study | LoE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Spain | Dalli Peydró, E. et al. [44] | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 29 | 72.5% | Randomized controlled trial | II |
2 | China | Chen, W. et al. [36] | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 30 | 75% | Randomized controlled trial | II |
3 | Spain | Bernal-Jiménez, M. et al. [43] | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 32 | 80% | Randomized controlled trial | II |
4 | New Zealand | Yudi, M. B. et al. [40] | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 28 | 70% | Randomized controlled trial | II |
5 | China | Zheng, Y. et al. [42] | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 30 | 75% | Randomized controlled trial | II |
6 | Spain | Calvo-López, M. et al. [45] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 26 | 65% | Cross sectional study | III |
7 | China | Ma, J. et al. [46] | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 28 | 70% | Observational cohort study | V |
8 | China | Yu, H. et al. [47] | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 30 | 75% | Retrospective comparative study | V |
9 | Turkey | Yakut, H. et al. [37] | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 29 | 72.5% | Randomized controlled trial | II |
10 | China | Li, Z. et al. [38] | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 29 | 72.5% | Randomized controlled trial | III |
11 | Belgium | Sankaran, S. et al. [50] | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 32 | 80% | Multidisciplinary crossover study | III |
12 | Korea | Lee, Y. H. et al. [35] | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 32 | 80% | Randomized controlled trial | II |
13 | China | Gu, J. et al. [48] | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 32 | 80% | Prospective cohort study | V |
14 | China | Fang, J. et al. [39] | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 30 | 75% | Randomized controlled trial | II |
15 | Italy | Campo, G. et al. [41] | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 36 | 90% | Randomized controlled trial | II |
16 | China | Lao, S. S. W. et al. [34] | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 34 | 85% | Randomized controlled trial | II |
17 | China | Chen et al. [49] | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 32 | 80% | Prospective cohort study | V |
N° | Author(s) | Year and Country of Study | Type of Study | Inclusion Criteria | Intervention(s) Type/s and Duration | Outcome(s) and Results | CCAT |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Ernesto Dalli Peydro, [44] | Spain, 2022 | RCT | N = 67 patients; low-risk acute coronary syndrome patients, aged 18–72 years, left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50%, minimum smartphone usage skills | Comparison of a 10-month cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) program with a conventional 8-week center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) program. Duration: CTR 10 months and CBCR 8 weeks | Primary Outcome: Increased physical activity (measured in MET min/week using IPAQ). Secondary Outcomes: VO2max, adherence to a Mediterranean diet, psychological well-being, health-related quality of life, and smoking cessation; CTR group showed greater increases in physical activity, VO2max, and adherence to a Mediterranean diet; The program also reduces dropouts and favors the return to work. Psychological distress and quality of life were better in the CTR group compared to the CBCR group. | 29 |
2 | Wanping Chen, [49] | China 2024 | RCT | N = 106 patients (47 in the home-based group, 50 in the center-guided home-based group); patients aged 35–70 years. Confirmed diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Completed coronary revascularization. Stable condition post-revascularization. No severe comorbidities or contraindications for exercise | Group A: Home-based rehabilitation. Group B: Center-guided home-based rehabilitation. Both groups underwent personalized exercise prescriptions and cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) before and after 12 weeks of rehabilitation. Duration: 12 weeks | Primary Outcome: Peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak). Secondary Outcomes: Maximum metabolic equivalents (METs), anaerobic threshold oxygen uptake (VO2AT), maximal workload (Load max), cardiopulmonary reserve capacity; Significant improvements in METs, VO2peak, Load AT, and VO2AT in the center-guided home-based group compared to the home-based group. The center-guided group achieved better outcomes in a shorter time, highlighting the importance of supervised rehabilitation | 30 |
3 | Bernal-Jiméne, [43] | Spain 2024 | RCT | N = 128 patients, 67 in the mHealth group and 61 in the control group; the study included patients with CAD aged between 18 and 75 years who owned a smartphone with an internet connection during the whole study period that have received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation. | mHealth Group: Patients used the EVITE app, which provided self-monitoring tools, personalized feedback, educational content, and motivation strategies to support lifestyle changes. Control Group: Received standard healthcare with verbal and written recommendations on lifestyle changes. Duration: 9 months | Primary Outcomes: Adherence to the Mediterranean diet, frequency of healthy food consumption, physical activity (self-reported), smoking cessation, knowledge of healthy lifestyle, quality of life, therapeutic adherence, and overall satisfaction. Secondary Outcomes: BMI, waist circumference, blood pressure (systolic and diastolic), heart rate, HbA1c, lipid profile, anxiety and depression, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE); The mHealth group showed significant improvements compared to the control group: Mediterranean diet adherence: 11.83 vs. 10.14 points (p < 0.001). Physical activity: 619.14 vs. 471.70 min/week (p = 0.007). Smoking cessation: 75% vs. 42% of smokers stopped (p = 0.01). Quality of life: Higher physical component score (45.80 vs. 41.40, p = 0.02). Therapeutic adherence: Comparable between groups (84% vs. 78%). No significant differences in BMI, blood pressure, or lipid profile. Anxiety and depression decreased in both groups | 32 |
4 | Yudi, [40] | Australia 2020 | RCT | N = 206 patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), of whom, 168 completed the follow-up; Adults aged 18 years or older. Diagnosis of ACS with documented coronary artery disease (≥50% stenosis). Treated with medical therapy or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Ownership of a smartphone. No significant exercise limitations or life expectancy < 1 year. | Smartphone-based Cardiac Rehabilitation Program (S-CRP): Patients received guidance on exercise, medication adherence, and lifestyle changes through a smartphone app. Usual Care (UC): Patients received traditional rehabilitation referral. Duration: 8 weeks | Primary Outcome: Change in exercise capacity (6 min walk test distance). Secondary Outcomes: Adherence to cardiac rehabilitation, changes in cardiac risk factors, psychological well-being (anxiety and depression), and quality of life (SF-36 and EQ5D); of the 168 patients with complete follow-up. At 8-week follow-up, the S-CRP group had a clinically significant improvement in 6 min walk test distance. Higher adherence and uptake of rehabilitation in the S-CRP group (adherence: 72% vs. 22%, p < 0.001). No significant differences in cardiac risk factors, anxiety, or depression between groups. Comparable quality of life improvements in both groups | 28 |
5 | Zheng Y., [42] | China 2024 | Randomized controlled trial (RCT) | N = 106 patients (53 in the intervention group, 53 in the control group). Patients had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). | Intervention Group: Received routine rehabilitation care and home-based cardiac telerehabilitation with monitoring and feedback. Control Group: Received routine care without additional telemonitoring. Duration: 3 months | Primary Outcomes: Improvements in exercise endurance (6 min walk test, VO2max), and cardiac function (left ventricular ejection fraction, anaerobic threshold). Secondary Outcomes: Quality of life (measured with the Short-Form 12 scale), mental and physical component summary scores, and family burden status. Significant improvements in the intervention group compared to the control group in: 6 min walk test: Increased distance covered. VO2max and anaerobic threshold: Significant improvement in exercise capacity. Quality of life: Higher scores on physical and mental health components (Short-Form 12). Family burden status: Reduction in perceived family burden due to illness | 30 |
6 | Margarita Calvo-López, [45] | Spain 2023 | Cross-sectional Pilot Study | N = 50 patients completed the program. Patients who experienced an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the previous 3 months. Left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 40%. Access to a mobile device or tablet. Did not participate in any previous cardiac rehabilitation program | Holistic home-based cardiac telerehabilitation program (telematic CRP) including: Tailored aerobic and strength training (3 weekly sessions). Educational sessions on lifestyle habits, therapeutic adherence, and patient empowerment (2 weekly sessions). Delivered via the HumanITcare telemedicine platform. | Primary Outcomes: Improvements in functional capacity and muscle strength. Secondary Outcomes: Adherence to the Mediterranean diet, emotional state (anxiety and depression), quality of life (EuroQoL questionnaire), and program feasibility and safety; Significant improvements in functional capacity (+1.6 METs), muscle strength (arm curl +15.5%, sit-to-stand +19.7%), weekly training volume (+803 METs), adherence to the Mediterranean diet, and anxiety levels. No major complications occurred; adherence was >80% for both exercise and educational sessions. | 26 |
7 | Ma J., [46] | China 2021 | Prospective Observational Cohort Study | N = 335 patients. 170 in home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBRC) group, 165 in control group. Age ≥ 18 years. Successful PCI (residual stenosis < 30% without complications). Smartphone ownership with an active WeChat account. | HBCR Group: Patients received weekly health education materials and monthly personalized exercise prescriptions via a WeChat-based smartphone platform. Interaction included telemonitoring, telecommunication, and real-time data sharing. Control Group: Received standard care, including a one-time 20 min health education session. Duration: 42 months | Primary Outcome: Incidence of major adverse cardiac events, including cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, unscheduled coronary revascularization, and non-fatal stroke. Secondary Outcomes: Exercise capacity (measured in METs). Quality of life (Seattle Angina Questionnaire). Psychological status (GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores). Risk factor management and unscheduled hospitalizations; HBCR group demonstrated significantly lower major adverse cardiac events incidence (1.5% vs. 8.9%; p = 0.002). Improved exercise capacity (mean METs: 6.2 vs. 5.1; p = 0.002). Better quality of life scores and superior risk factor control compared to the control group. Reduced unscheduled readmissions (9.7% vs. 23%; p = 0.002) | 28 |
8 | Yu H., [47] | China 2021 | Retrospective comparative study | N = 115 patients 57 in Group A 58 in Group B; Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) confirmed by emergency coronary angiography. Successful PCI without contraindications. Clear consciousness and no communication barriers. | Group A (Control): Routine rehabilitation guidance including health education, diet, and medication adherence. Group B (Intervention): Early home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) exercise including personalized plans with aerobic exercises during hospitalization and after discharge. Duration: 3 months | Improved ejection fraction, systolic and ventricular function. 6 min walking distance (6MWD). Improvement of cardiac antioxidant index). Exercise endurance (exercise duration, anaerobic threshold, VO2). Improved quality of life; early home-based CR exercise improved cardiac function. Longer 6MWD (458.96 m vs. 352.12 m p < 0.05). Higher cardiac antioxidant levels. Increased exercise endurance with increase of VO2max. Better quality of live across multiple dimensions. | 30 |
9 | Yakut H., [37] | Turkey, 2022 | RCT | N = 21 patients (11 in the HIIT group, 10 in the MICT group); The patients with myocardial infarction, 35–65 years, left ventricular ejection fraction > 50%, clinically stable and able to walk independently. | Home-based HIIT group with high-intensity interval training performed twice a week, focusing on intervals of 85–95% heart rate reserve. MICT Group: Moderate-intensity continuous training performed twice a week, focusing on 70–75% heart rate reserve. The programs included warm-up, main exercise, and cool-down sessions. Duration: 12 weeks | The primary outcome measure was functional capacity using 6 min walking test (6MWT). Secondary outcomes included resting blood pressure and HR, peripheral oxygen saturation, pulmonary function and respiratory muscle strength, dyspnea severity, body composition, peripheral muscle strength, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Both HIIT and MICT groups showed significant improvements in functional capacity, pulmonary function, and quality of life (HRQoL). HIIT was more effective than MICT in improving lower limb muscle strength (e.g., knee extensor strength) and pulmonary function. Significant decreases in BMI and body fat percentage were observed in both groups, though differences between groups were not statistically significant. | 29 |
10 | Li Z., [38] | China, 2022 | RCT | N = 80 patients (40 in the control group and 40 in the observation group); Diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction, age between 30 and 70 years, left ventricular ejection fraction > 50%, good communication skills, and willingness to participate. | Remote Rehabilitation group: Home-based rehabilitation using remote ECG monitoring, guided by medical staff for tailored rehabilitation plans. Control group with traditional rehabilitation. Duration: 6 months | Primary outcomes with improvement in heart function and distance given by the 6 min walking distance. Secondary outcomes: improvement of quality of life, medication compliance, avoid readmissions and adverse events. Significantly improved LVEF and 6MWD compared to the control group at 6 months (421.75 m vs. 346.72 m; p < 0.05). Higher medication compliance (92.5% vs. 77.5%; p < 0.05) and quality of life scores. Lower rates of unplanned readmissions and adverse cardiac events such as heart failure and unstable angina. | 29 |
11 | Sankaran S., [50] | Belgium, 2019 | Multidisciplinary Crossover Study | N = 32 patients randomized in 2 groups; only 28 completing the study.; Adult > 18 years with coronary artery disease; history of PCI; clinically stable with no high-risk arrythmias; possession of a smartphone. | HeartHab App Group: Interactive telerehabilitation using the HeartHab app, which provided personalized exercise targets, motivational features, and progress tracking. Control Group: Usual care with no additional digital interventions. Duration: 4 months | Primary Outcomes: Physical activity levels (measured in METs), quality of life (EQ-5D, HeartQoL), and motivation. Secondary Outcomes: Physiological changes (HbA1c, HDL cholesterol), exercise capacity (VO2max), and carryover effects post-intervention; Significant improvements in HDL cholesterol (+0.61 mg/dL) and HbA1c (−1.5 mg/dL) during the app usage phase (p < 0.05). Increased physical activity (measured in METs) and VO2max. Positive carryover effects on motivation, weight, and HDL cholesterol after stopping the app. Enhanced quality of life scores (EQ-5D and HeartQoL). 84% of patients reached or exceeded their prescribed physical activity targets. | 32 |
12 | Lee Y.H., [35] | South Korea, 2013, | RCT | N = 55 patients. 26 home-based cardiac rehabilitation, 29 usual care group. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with PCI. Age between 18–80 years. Ejection fraction > 30%, Nyha Class I–II, ability to exercise. | Home-based exercise training with wireless monitoring (HeartCall™ device) for 12 weeks. Structured exercise program including scheduled gait exercise (4–5 sessions/week). Gradual increase in exercise intensity monitored via ECG through wireless devices. Regular counseling and feedback via phone. Usual care group with standard medical therapy, diet control, self-managed exercise. Duration: 12 weeks | Primary outcomes: Exercise capacity (METs, exercise time) and quality of life (QOL) scores. Secondary outcomes: rate of perceived exertion. Cardiac rehabilitation group: Significant improvement in METs (+2.47 vs. +1.43; p = 0.021), exercise time (+169.68 vs. +88.31 s; p = 0.012), and QOL scores (+4.81 vs. +0.89; p = 0.022). Greater reductions in submaximal rate pressure product and rate of perceived exertion. Usual care group: Showed modest improvements but significantly less than the CR group. | 32 |
13 | Gu J., [48] | China, 2023 | Prospective Cohort Study | N = 92 patients (45 in the usual care group, 47 in the remote rehab. group). Coronary artery disease, Age ≤ 75 years, Completion of PCI with a drug-eluting stent within the last 6 weeks, completion of at least 5 weeks of ambulatory cardiac rehabilitation without adverse cardiac events. | Remote Group: Home-based rehabilitation supported by wireless monitoring via Xiaomi MI Band 5, with data collected and analyzed remotely by clinicians. Weekly remote follow-ups were conducted through phone and home visits. Usual care: Traditional hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation sessions, including supervised aerobic and strength exercises, education, and weekly psychotherapy. Duration: 12 weeks | Primary Outcomes: Exercise capacity (6 min walk test (6MWT), VO2max) and respiratory anaerobic threshold (VO2AT). Secondary Outcomes: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL), anxiety and depression, minor family burden. Both groups showed significant improvement in exercise capacity and HRQoL after 8 and 12 weeks (p < 0.05). Remote rehabilitation led to better HRQoL in mental health domains (vitality, role emotional, and mental composite summary scores) compared to in-person CR after 8 weeks (p < 0.05). Anxiety and depression scores significantly decreased in both groups, with the remote group showing greater improvement (p < 0.05). Family burden scores were significantly lower in the remote group at both 8 and 12 weeks (p < 0.05) | 32 |
14 | Fang J., [39] | China, 2018 | RCT | N = 80 patients 40 in the home-based cardiac telerehabilitation group and 40 in the usual care group. Patient with low-risk post PCI, living with at least one other person, ability to send and receive mobile phone messages. Exclusion criteria: Diabetes, severe comorbidities (e.g., malignancy, severe liver/kidney disease), or cognitive impairment. | Remote Group: Received paper-based CHD booklets and biweekly outpatient reviews educational materials, performed structured walking or jogging thrice weekly, and utilized a remote monitoring system with real-time feedback. UC Group: Received paper-based booklets and biweekly outpatient reviews. Duration: 6 weeks | Primary Outcomes: Exercise capacity (6 min walk test, 6MWT). And improvement of health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes: Decreased nicotine addiction, depression, and decreased blood pressure. Both groups showed significant improvements in 6MWT, improvement in quality of life, depression end nicotine addiction. The home-based rehabilitation group had significantly greater improvements in exercise capacity (6MWT: +48.2 m vs. +34.77 m; p = 0.006) and quality of life (SF-36 physical: +14.18 vs. +6.75, p = 0.015; mental: +11.39 vs. +4.27, p = 0.021) compared to the usual care group. No significant differences in blood pressure or CDS improvements between groups. | 30 |
15 | Campo G., [41] | Italy, 2020 | RCT | N = 235 patients (118 in the exercise intervention group, 117 in the control group). Age ≥ 70 years, hospital admission for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), SPPB (Short Physical Performance Battery) score between 4 and 9 at baseline, ejection fraction > 30%, and without valvular diseases. | Exercise Intervention Group: Four supervised sessions (at 1, 2, 3, and 4 months post-discharge) led by a sports physician and nurse. Individualized home-based exercise program including walking and balance exercises performed three times a week. Exercises were based on the Otago Exercise Program and adjusted during each follow-up visit. Control Group: 20 min session of health education on heart healthy lifestyle practice. Duration: 1 year | Improvement in physical performance. Secondary outcomes: quality of life, functional capacity, anxiety and depression; Significant improvement in SPPB scores in the intervention group at 6 and 12 months (baseline: 7.6 to 9.8; p < 0.001). Increased grip strength (+16%) and gait speed (+0.18 m/s) in the intervention group compared to the control group (p < 0.001). Improved quality of life: EQ-5D scores significantly higher in the intervention group (p < 0.001). Lower anxiety and depression scores in the intervention group at 6 and 12 months (p = 0.03). Reduction in cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for heart failure in the intervention group (7.5% vs. 17%; p = 0.04) | 36 |
16 | Lao S. S. W., [34] | China, 2023 | RCT | N = 110 patients (experimental group, 55; control group, 55). Post-PCI patients, smartphone ownership, and capability to use mHealth applications. | Experimental group: Cardiac rehabilitation supported by an mHealth application, with components of self-care, exercise monitoring, education, and remote interaction. Usual care with routine follow-up and no mHealth integration. Duration: 6 months | Primary Outcomes: Improvements in physical activity, quality of life, anxiety, and depression levels. Secondary Outcomes: Medication adherence, cardiovascular risk factor modification, exercise self-efficacy, and mHealth utility and satisfaction; Significant reduction in anxiety, depression, total cholesterol, LDL levels, and sedentary time. Improvement in 6 min walk test distance, regular exercise adherence, self-efficacy, and quality of life (p < 0.05). The feasibility of mHealth integration was rated satisfactory and effective for supporting cardiac rehabilitation. | 34 |
17 | Chen SL, [49] | China, 2024 | Prospective Cohort Study | N = 200 patients (100 in the remote management group and 100 in the usual care group). Patients who underwent PCI. Stable coronary artery disease. Ability to use the WeChat app. Willingness to participate in the remote management program | Use of WeChat-based remote management, for proper communication with healthcare professionals, receive educational material on cardiovascular health, receive personalized follow-ups and reminders. The control group received standard care without WeChat. | Improvement of HRQL and adherence to medication, cardiovascular risk factor control, and patient satisfaction. Improvement of HRQOL in WeChat group compared to the control group. Major adherence to prescribed medication and lifestyle modifications in the WeChat group. | 32 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Limonti, F.; Gigliotti, A.; Cecere, L.; Varvaro, A.; Bosco, V.; Mazzotta, R.; Gravante, F.; Ramacciati, N. Evaluating the Efficacy and Impact of Home-Based Cardiac Telerehabilitation on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI): A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 4971. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14144971
Limonti F, Gigliotti A, Cecere L, Varvaro A, Bosco V, Mazzotta R, Gravante F, Ramacciati N. Evaluating the Efficacy and Impact of Home-Based Cardiac Telerehabilitation on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI): A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025; 14(14):4971. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14144971
Chicago/Turabian StyleLimonti, Francesco, Andrea Gigliotti, Luciano Cecere, Angelo Varvaro, Vincenzo Bosco, Rocco Mazzotta, Francesco Gravante, and Nicola Ramacciati. 2025. "Evaluating the Efficacy and Impact of Home-Based Cardiac Telerehabilitation on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI): A Systematic Review" Journal of Clinical Medicine 14, no. 14: 4971. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14144971
APA StyleLimonti, F., Gigliotti, A., Cecere, L., Varvaro, A., Bosco, V., Mazzotta, R., Gravante, F., & Ramacciati, N. (2025). Evaluating the Efficacy and Impact of Home-Based Cardiac Telerehabilitation on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI): A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(14), 4971. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14144971