Background: Telerehabilitation in cardiology has the potential to become the alternative to regular outpatient cardiac rehabilitation. Our study focuses on the wrist heart rate monitor as a telerehabilitation device, defines detected limitations, and compares results between home-based and regular outpatient rehabilitation methods, related to physical fitness, quality of life, and training adherence. The study design was a randomized controlled trial. Methods: Eligible 56 cardiac rehabilitation patients were randomized into a 12-week regular outpatient training group (ROT) and interventional home-based telerehabilitation group (ITG). For both groups, the intensity of the training was prescribed to be performed at 70% to 80% of heart rate reserve for 60 minutes, 3 times a week. The ITG patients started their training with a wrist heart rate monitor in their home environment. These patients received feedback once a week, reflecting data uploaded on the internet application. The ROT patients performed their exercise under the direct supervision of a physical specialist in a regular outpatient clinic. Physical fitness and health-related quality of life were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks. Training adherence in both groups was determined and compared. Results: Fifty-one patients comleted the intervention (91%); no serious adverse events were recorded. Physical fitness expressed as peak oxygen uptake showed significant improvement ( P < .001) in ROT group from 23.4 ± 3.3 to 25.9 ± 4.1 mL/kg/min and ( P < .01) in ITG group from 23.7 ± 4.1 to 26.5 ± 5.7 mL/kg/min without significant between-group differences after 12 weeks of intervention. The training adherence between groups was similar. Conclusion: Our study shows that telerehabilitation via wrist heart rate monitor could become an alternative kind of cardiac rehabilitation which deserves attention and further analyzing.

No abstract

No abstract

Cardiovascular diseases are the most common causes of mortality worldwide. They are frequently the reasons for patient hospitalization, their incapability for work, and disability. These diseases represent a significant socio-economic burden affecting the medical system as well as patients and their families. It has been demonstrated that the etiopathogenesis of cardiovascular diseases is significantly affected by lifestyle, and so modification of the latter is an essential component of both primary and secondary prevention. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) represents an efficient secondary prevention model that is especially based on the positive effect of regular physical activity. This review presents an overview of basic information on CR with a focus on current trends, such as the issue of the various training modalities, utilization, and barriers to it or the use of telemedicine technologies. Appropriate attention should be devoted to these domains, as CR continues evolving as an effective and readily available intervention in the future.

Cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR) is an effective secondary preventive model of care. However, the use of CR is insufficient, and the reasons for this are not well-characterized in East-Central Europe. This prospective observational study psychometrically validated the recently translated Cardiac Rehabilitation Barriers Scale for the Czech language (CRBS-CZE) and identified the main CR barriers. Consecutive cardiac in/out-patients were approached from January 2020 for 18 months, of whom 186 (89.9%) consented. In addition to sociodemographic characteristics, participants completed the 21-item CRBS-CZE (response options 1–5, with higher scores representing greater barriers), and their CR utilization was tracked. Forty-five (24.2%) participants enrolled in CR, of whom 42 completed the CRBS a second time thereafter. Factor analysis revealed four factors, consistent with other CRBS translations. Internal reliability was acceptable for all but one factor (Cronbach’s alpha range = 0.44–0.77). Mean total barrier scores were significantly higher in non-enrollers (p < 0.001), decreased from first and second administration in these enrollers (p < 0.001), and were lower in CR completers (p < 0.001), supporting criterion validity. There were also significant differences in barrier scores by education, geography, tobacco use, among other variables, further supporting validity. The biggest barriers to enrolment were distance, work responsibilities, lack of time, transportation problems, and comorbidities; and the greatest barriers to adherence were distance and travel. Several items were considered irrelevant at first and second administration. Other barriers included wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study demonstrated sufficient validity and reliability of CRBS-CZE, which supports its use in future research.