Impact of phase II cardiac telerehabilitation on physical capacity in coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Clicks: 1
ID: 315180
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #161 of 194 articles by views in european journal of preventive cardiology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 194 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Text abstract Aims Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death globally. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) reduces cardiovascular mortality, hospital readmissions, and improves quality of life, yet participation in center-based programs remains low. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical benefits of cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR), using exercise as the primary intervention, on physical capacity compared with center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) or usual care in patients with CHD. Methods This review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251160310). Five databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, CENTRAL) were searched from January 2000 to 15 October 2025. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling adults with CHD in phase II CTR, with exercise training as a mandatory core component, optionally supplemented by other CR elements. Outcomes were cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) (peak VO2) and functional capacity (6MWT, ISWT) between CTR and CBCR or usual care. For outcomes with substantial heterogeneity (I2 > 50%), random-effects meta-analyses were conducted using inverse-variance weighting, restricted maximum likelihood estimation, and Knapp–Hartung adjustment. Results Twenty-five studies (n=2717) were included. Compared with CBCR, no statistically significant difference was observed between CTR and CBCR in improvements VO2peak (mean difference (MD): 1.55, 95% CI: −1.60 to 4.70; I2 = 83.7%; p = 0.168) and 6MWT (MD: 15.01, 95% CI: −7.30 to 37.33; I2 = 0.0%; p = 0.187) at short-term (ST; 3 months). These comparable improvements persisted long-term (LT; 6-12 months). By contrast, CTR led to a significantly greater improvement compared with usual care in VO2peak (MD: 3.86, 95% CI: 3.03 to 4.69; I2 = 0.0%; p < 0.0001) and 6MWT (MD: 37.83, 95% CI: 22.12 to 53.53; I2 = 62.3%; p = 0.001) at short-term. Conclusion CTR provides improvementsin CRF and functional capacity with no statistically significant difference compared with CBCR, and significantly greater improvements compared with usual care.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7162625641
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Sevda Ece Kizilkilic, Jovana Ristic, Gunhild Brørs, L X Xu, Maria Bäck, Martijn Scherrenberg, Maarten Falter, Mathieu Koppert, Andrea Belén Ortiz Rivera, Michel De Pauw, Paul Dendale |
| Journal | european journal of preventive cardiology |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/eurjpc/zwag287
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.