A proper determination of the exercise intensity is important for the rehabilitation of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) since it affects the effectiveness and medical safety of exercise training. In 2013, the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC), together with the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Canadian Association of Cardiac Rehabilitation, published a position statement on aerobic exercise intensity assessment and prescription in cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR). Since this publication, many subsequent papers were published concerning the determination of the exercise intensity in CR, in which some controversies were revealed and some of the commonly applied concepts were further refined. Moreover, how to determine the exercise intensity during resistance training was not covered in this position paper. In light of these new findings, an update on how to determine the exercise intensity for patients with CVD is mandatory, both for aerobic and resistance exercises. In this EAPC position paper, it will be explained in detail which objective and subjective methods for CR exercise intensity determination exist for aerobic and resistance training, together with their (dis)advantages and practical applications.

Key Points Question Is cardiac telerehabilitation with relapse prevention cost-effective compared with center-based cardiac rehabilitation for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease? Findings In this economic evaluation of data from 300 participants with coronary artery disease enrolled in the SmartCare-CAD randomized clinical trial, patients who received cardiac telerehabilitation with relapse prevention vs traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation experienced comparable quality of life and nonsignificantly lower cardiac-associated health care costs and non–health care costs. Meaning This study found that cardiac telerehabilitation with relapse prevention was likely to be cost-effective compared with center-based cardiac rehabilitation and may be used as an alternative to center-based cardiac rehabilitation among patients with coronary artery disease.

Commercially available health technologies such as smartphones and smartwatches, activity trackers and eHealth applications, commonly referred to as wearables, are increasingly available and used both in the leisure and healthcare sector for pulse and fitness/activity tracking. The aim of the Position Paper is to identify specific barriers and knowledge gaps for the use of wearables, in particular for heart rate and activity tracking, in clinical cardiovascular healthcare to support their implementation into clinical care. The widespread use of heart rate and fitness tracking technologies provides unparalleled opportunities for capturing physiological information from large populations in the community, which has previously only been available in patient populations in the setting of healthcare provision. The availability of low-cost and high-volume physiological data from the community also provides unique challenges. While the number of patients meeting healthcare providers with data from wearables is rapidly growing, there are at present no clinical guidelines on how and when to use data from wearables in primary and secondary prevention. Technical aspects of heart rate tracking especially during activity need to be further validated. How to analyze, translate, and interpret large datasets of information into clinically applicable recommendations needs further consideration. While the current users of wearable technologies tend to be young, healthy and in the higher sociodemographic strata, wearables could potentially have a greater utility in the elderly and higher risk population. Wearables may also provide a benefit through increased health awareness, democratization of health data and patient engagement. Use of continuous monitoring may provide opportunities for detection of risk factors and disease development earlier in the causal pathway, which may provide novel applications in both prevention and clinical research. However, wearables may also have potential adverse consequences due to unintended modification of behaviour, uncertain use and interpretation of large physiological data, a possible increase in social inequality due to differential access and technological literacy, challenges with regulatory bodies and privacy issues. In the present position paper, current applications as well as specific barriers and gaps in knowledge are identified and discussed in order to support the implementation of wearable technologies from gadget-ology into clinical cardiology.