Cardiac rehabilitation remains the 'Cinderella' of treatments for heart failure. This state-of-the-art review provides a contemporary update on the evidence base, clinical guidance, and status of cardiac rehabilitation delivery for patients with heart failure. Given that cardiac rehabilitation participation results in important improvements in patient outcomes, including health-related quality of life, this review argues that an exercise-based rehabilitation is a key pillar of heart failure management alongside drug and medical device provision. To drive future improvements in access and uptake, health services should offer heart failure patients a choice of evidence-based modes of rehabilitation delivery, including home, supported by digital technology, alongside traditional centre-based programmes (or combinations of modes, 'hybrid') and according to stage of disease and patient preference.

AbstractRehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) is a home-based cardiac rehabilitation intervention designed for patients with heart failure and their caregivers. We present a pooled analysis of patients >18 years with a confirmed diagnosis of HF recruited to two REACH-HF randomized controlled trials. Where identified by patients and consented to participate, caregivers were randomly assigned with patients to receive the REACH-HF intervention plus usual care or usual care alone. Our analysis demonstrated that compared to control group, the REACH-HF group had a greater gain in their disease-specific health-related quality of life at follow-up.

Abstract
.
. Aims
. Alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) are required to improve CR access and uptake. Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) is a comprehensive home-based rehabilitation and self-management programme, facilitated by trained health professionals, for people with heart failure (HF) and their caregivers. REACH-HF was shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective in a multi-centre randomized trial. The SCOT:REACH-HF study assessed implementation of REACH-HF in routine clinical practice in NHS Scotland.
.
.
. Methods and results
. A mixed-method implementation study was conducted across six regional Health Boards. of 136 people with HF and 56 caregivers recruited, 101 people with HF and 26 caregivers provided 4-month follow-up data, after participating in the 12-week programme. Compared with baseline, REACH-HF participation resulted in substantial gains in the primary outcome of health-related quality of life, as assessed by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (mean difference: −9.8, 95% CI: −13.2 to −6.4, P < 0.001). Improvements were also seen in secondary outcomes (PROM-CR+; EQ-5D-5L; Self-Care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) domains of maintenance and symptom perception; Caregiver Contribution to Self-Care domains of symptom perception and management). Twenty qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 REACH-HF facilitators, five supporting clinicians, and four national stakeholders. Interviewees were largely positive about REACH-HF, considering it to have ‘filled a gap’ where centre-based CR was not an option. Key issues to support future roll-out were also identified.
.
.
. Conclusion
. Our findings support wider roll-out of REACH-HF as an alternative to centre-based models, to improve CR access and uptake for people with HF.
.

Abstract
. Background
. Cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure continues to be greatly underused worldwide despite being a Class I recommendation in international clinical guidelines and uptake is low in women and patients with mental health comorbidities.
.
. Methods
. Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) programme was implemented in four UK National Health Service early adopter sites (‘Beacon Sites’) between June 2019 and June 2020. Implementation and patient-reported outcome data were collected across sites as part of the National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation. The change in key outcomes before and after the supervised period of REACH-HF intervention across the Beacon Sites was assessed and compared to those of the intervention arm of the REACH-HF multicentre trial.
.
. Results
. Compared to the REACH-HF multicentre trial, patients treated at the Beacon Site were more likely to be female (33.8% vs 22.9%), older (75.6 vs 70.1), had a more severe classification of heart failure (26.5% vs 17.7%), had poorer baseline health-related quality of life (MLHFQ score 36.1 vs 31.4), were more depressed (HADS score 6.4 vs 4.1) and anxious (HADS score 7.2 vs 4.7), and had lower exercise capacity (ISWT distance 190 m vs 274.7 m). There appeared to be a substantial heterogeneity in the implementation process across the four Beacon Sites as evidenced by the variation in levels of patient recruitment, operationalisation of the REACH-HF intervention and patient outcomes. Overall lower improvements in patient-reported outcomes at the Beacon Sites compared to the trial may reflect differences in the population studied (having higher morbidity at baseline) as well as the marked challenges in intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.
.
. Conclusion
. The results of this study illustrate the challenges in consistently implementing an intervention (shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective in a multicentre trial) into real-world practice, especially in the midst of a global pandemic. Further research is needed to establish the real-world effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention in different populations.
.

AIM: to achieve effectiveness and reduce inequality in everyday cardiac rehabilitation, this study aims to compare individual patient characteristics along with completion rates to traditional and evolving modes of delivery in cardiac rehabilitation. METHOD: Patients were included from the UK National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation (NACR) database. All patients with coronary heart disease (≥18 years) between the 1st of January 2014 to 31st of December 2019 that started core rehabilitation with a recorded mode of cardiac rehabilitation delivery were eligible. Modes of delivery were divided into: centre-based, home-based, and hybrid. Logistic regression models were used to investigate association between modes of delivery and completion adjusting for patient demographics. RESULT: in total 182,722 patients had mode of delivery recorded: 72.8% centre-based, 8.3% home-based and 18.9% hybrid. The home-based mode in comparison to hybrid and centre-based had significantly higher rates of females, single, white, and unemployed patients (p 

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation of the Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) programme within existing cardiac rehabilitation services, and develop and refine the REACH-HF Service Delivery Guide (an implementation guide cocreated with healthcare professionals). REACH-HF is an effective and cost-effective 12-week home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme for patients with heart failure. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: in 2019, four early adopter 'Beacon Sites' were set up to deliver REACH-HF to 200 patients. In 2020, 5 online REACH-HF training events were attended by 85 healthcare professionals from 45 National Health Service (NHS) teams across the UK and Ireland. DESIGN: Our mixed-methods study used in-depth semi-structured interviews and an online survey. Interviews were conducted with staff trained specifically for the Beacon Site project, identified by opportunity and snowball sampling. The online survey was later offered to subsequent NHS staff who took part in the online REACH-HF training. Normalisation Process Theory was used as a theoretical framework to guide data collection/analysis. RESULTS: Seventeen healthcare professionals working at the Beacon Sites were interviewed and 17 survey responses were received (20% response rate). The identified barriers and enablers included, among many, a lack of resources/commissioning, having interest in heart failure and working closely with the clinical heart failure team. Different implementation contexts (urban/rural), timing (during the COVID-19 pandemic) and factors outside the healthcare team/system (quality of the REACH-HF training) were observed to negatively or positively impact the implementation process. CONCLUSIONS: the findings are highly relevant to healthcare professionals involved in planning, delivering and commissioning of cardiac rehabilitation for patients with heart failure. The study's main output, a refined version of the REACH-HF Service Delivery Guide, can guide the implementation process (eg, designing new care pathways) and provide practical solutions to overcoming common implementation barriers (eg, through early identification of implementation champions).

AIMS: to examine the temporal trends and factors associated with national cardiac rehabilitation (CR) referral and compare the risk of hospital readmission and mortality in those referred for CR versus no referral. METHODS AND RESULTS: This cohort study includes all adult patients alive 120 days from incident heart failure (HF) identified by the Danish Heart Failure Registry (n = 33 257) between 2010 and 2018. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association between CR referral and patient factors and acute all-cause hospital readmission and mortality at 1 year following HF admission. Overall, 46.7% of HF patients were referred to CR, increasing from 31.7% in 2010 to 52.2% in 2018. Several factors were associated with lower odds of CR referral: male sex [odds ratio (OR): 0.85; 95% confidence interval: 0.80-0.89], older age, unemployment, retirement, living alone, non-Danish ethnic origin, low educational level, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV vs. I (OR: 0.75; 0.60-0.95), left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, and comorbidity (stroke, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation/flutter, and diabetes). Myocardial infarction, arthritis, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, valvular surgery, NYHA class II, and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were associated with higher odds of CR referral. CR referral was associated with lower risk of acute all-cause readmission (OR: 0.92; 0.87-0.97) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.65; 0.58-0.72). CONCLUSION: Although increased over time, only one in two HF patients in Denmark were referred to CR in 2018. Strategies are needed to reduce referral disparities, focusing on subgroups of patients at highest risk of non-referral.

Many people with heart failure do not receive cardiac rehabilitation despite a strong evidence base attesting to its effectiveness, and national and international guideline recommendations. A more holistic approach to heart failure rehabilitation is proposed as an alternative to the predominant focus on exercise, emphasising the important role of education and psychosocial support, and acknowledging that this depends on patient need, choice and preference. An individualised, needs-led approach, exploiting the latest digital technologies when appropriate, may help fill existing gaps, improve access, uptake and completion, and ensure optimal health and wellbeing for people with heart failure and their families. Exercise, education, lifestyle change and psychosocial support should, as core elements, unless contraindicated due to medical reasons, be offered routinely to people with heart failure, but tailored to individual circumstances, such as with regard to age and frailty, and possibly for recipients of cardiac implantable electronic devices or left ventricular assist devices.

Background: Whilst almost 50% of heart failure (HF) patients have preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), evidence-based treatment options for this patient group remain limited. However, there is growing evidence of the potential value of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. This study reports the process evaluation of the Rehabilitation Enablement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) intervention for HFpEF patients and their caregivers conducted as part of the REACH-HFpEF pilot trial. Methods: Process evaluation sub-study parallels to a single-centre (Tayside, Scotland) randomised controlled pilot trial with qualitative assessment of both intervention fidelity delivery and HFpEF patients’ and caregivers’ experiences. The REACH-HF intervention consisted of self-help manual for patients and caregivers, facilitated over 12 weeks by trained healthcare professionals. Interviews were conducted following completion of intervention in a purposeful sample of 15 HFpEF patients and seven caregivers. Results: Qualitative information from the facilitator interactions and interviews identified three key themes for patients and caregivers: (1) understanding their condition, (2) emotional consequences of HF, and (3) responses to the REACH-HF intervention. Fidelity analysis found the interventions to be delivered adequately with scope for improvement in caregiver engagement. The differing professional backgrounds of REACH-HF facilitators in this study demonstrate the possibility of delivery of the intervention by healthcare staff with expertise in HF, cardiac rehabilitation, or both. Conclusions: the REACH-HF home-based facilitated intervention for HFpEF appears to be a feasible and a well-accepted model for the delivery of rehabilitation, with the potential to address key unmet needs of patients and their caregivers who are often excluded from HF and current cardiac rehabilitation programmes. Results of this study will inform a recently funded full multicentre randomised clinical trial. Trial registration: ISRCTN78539530 (date of registration 7 July 2015).

IntroductionCardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves health-related quality of life and reduces hospital admissions. However, patients with heart failure (HF) often fail to attend centre-based CR programmes. Novel ways of delivering healthcare, such as home-based CR programmes, may improve uptake of CR. Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) is a new, effective and cost-effective home-based CR programme for people with HF. The aim of this prospective mixed-method implementation evaluation study is to assess the implementation of the REACH-HF CR programme in the UK National Health Service (NHS). The specific objectives are to (1) explore NHS staff perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of REACH-HF, (2) assess the quality of delivery of the programme in real-life clinical settings, (3) consider the nature of any adaptation(s) made and how they might impact on intervention effectiveness and (4) compare real-world patient outcomes to those seen in a prior clinical trial.Methods and analysisREACH-HF will be rolled out in four NHS CR centres across the UK. Three healthcare professionals from each site will be trained to deliver the 12-week programme. In-depth qualitative interviews and focus groups will be conducted with approximately 24 NHS professionals involved in delivering or commissioning the programme. Consultations for 48 patients (12 per site) will be audio recorded and scored using an intervention fidelity checklist. Outcomes routinely recorded in the National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation will be analysed and compared with outcomes from a recent randomised controlled trial: the Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire and exercise capacity (Incremental Shuttle Walk Test). Qualitative research findings will be mapped onto the Normalisation Process Theory framework and presented in the form of a narrative synthesis. Results of the study will inform national roll-out of REACH-HF.Ethics and disseminationThe study (IRAS 261723) has received ethics approval from the South Central (Hampshire B) Research Ethics Committee (19/SC/0304). Written informed consent will be obtained from all health professionals and patients participating in the study. The research team will ensure that the study is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the Data Protection Act 2018, General Data Protection Regulations and in accordance with the Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care (2005). Findings will be published in scientific peer-reviewed journals and presented at local, national and international meetings to publicise and explain the research methods and findings to key audiences to facilitate the further uptake of the REACH-HF intervention.

Abstract
. Background
. International guidelines for physical activity recommend at least 150 min per week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) for adults, including those with cardiac disease. There is yet to be consensus on the most appropriate way to categorise raw accelerometer data into behaviourally relevant metrics such as intensity, especially in chronic disease populations. Therefore the aim of this study was to estimate acceleration values corresponding to inactivity and MVPA during daily living activities of patients with heart failure (HF), via calibration with oxygen consumption (VO2) and to compare these values to previously published, commonly applied PA intensity thresholds which are based on healthy adults.
.
. Methods
. Twenty-two adults with HF (mean age 71 ± 14 years) undertook a range of daily living activities (including laying down, sitting, standing and walking) whilst measuring PA via wrist- and hip-worn accelerometers and VO2 via indirect calorimetry. Raw accelerometer output was used to compute PA in units of milligravity (mg). Energy expenditure across each of the activities was converted into measured METs (VO2/resting metabolic rate) and standard METs (VO2/3.5 ml/kg/min). PA energy costs were also compared with predicted METs in the compendium of physical activities. Location specific activity intensity thresholds were established via multilevel mixed effects linear regression and receiver operator characteristic curve analysis. A leave-one-out method was used to cross-validate the thresholds.
.
. Results
. Accelerometer values corresponding with intensity thresholds for inactivity (< 1.5METs) and MVPA (≥3.0METs) were > 50% lower than previously published intensity thresholds for both wrists and waist accelerometers (inactivity: 16.7 to 18.6 mg versus 45.8 mg; MVPA: 43.1 to 49.0 mg versus 93.2 to 100 mg). Measured METs were higher than both standard METs (34–35%) and predicted METs (45–105%) across all standing and walking activities.
.
. Conclusion
. HF specific accelerometer intensity thresholds for inactivity and MVPA are lower than previously published thresholds based on healthy adults, due to lower resting metabolic rate and greater energy expenditure during daily living activities for HF patients.
.
. Trial registration
. Clinical trials.gov NCT03659877, retrospectively registered on September 6th 2018.
.

INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence that cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an essential component of care for people with heart failure, uptake is low. A centre-based format is a known barrier, suggesting that home-based programmes might improve accessibility. The aim of SCOT: Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) is to assess the implementation of the REACH-HF home-based CR intervention in the context of the National Health Service (NHS) in Scotland.This paper presents the design and protocol for this observational implementation study. Specific objectives of SCOT:REACH-HF are to: (1) assess service-level facilitators and barriers to the implementation of REACH-HF; (2) compare real-world patient and caregiver outcomes to those seen in a prior clinical trial; and (3) estimate the economic (health and social) impact of implementing REACH-HF in Scotland. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: the REACH-HF intervention will be delivered in partnership with four 'Beacon sites' across six NHS Scotland Health Boards, covering rural and urban areas. Health professionals from each site will be trained to facilitate delivery of the 12-week programme to 140 people with heart failure and their caregivers. Patient and caregiver outcomes will be assessed at baseline and 4-month follow-up. Assessments include the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), five-dimension EuroQol 5L, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Caregiver Burden Questionnaire. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with up to 20 health professionals involved in programme delivery (eg, cardiac nurses, physiotherapists). 65 facilitator-patient consultations will be audio recorded and assessed for fidelity. Integrative analysis will address key research questions on fidelity, context and CR participant-related outcomes. The SCOT:REACH-HF findings will inform the future potential roll-out of REACH-HF in Scotland. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: the study has been given ethical approval by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Service (reference 20/WS/0038, approved 25 March 2020). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The study is listed on the ISRCTN registry with study ID ISRCTN53784122. The research team will ensure that the study is conducted in accordance with both General Data Protection Regulations and the University of Glasgow's Research Governance Framework. Findings will be reported to the funder and shared with Beacon Sites, to facilitate service evaluation, planning and good practice. To broaden interest in, and understanding of REACH-HF, we will seek to publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals and present at stakeholder events, national and international conferences.

OBJECTIVES: This study performed a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) for heart failure (HF). BACKGROUND: There is an increasing call for trials of models of ExCR for patients with HF that provide alternatives to conventional center-based provision and recruitment of patients that reflect a broader HF population. METHODS: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were searched between January 2013 and January 2018. Randomized trials comparing patients undergoing ExCR to control patients not undergoing exercise were included. Study outcomes were pooled using meta-analysis. Metaregression examined potential effect modification according to ExCR program characteristics, and risk of bias, trial sequential analysis (TSA), and Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were applied. RESULTS: Across 44 trials (n = 5,783; median follow-up of 6 months), compared with control subjects, ExCR did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR]: 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66 to 1.21; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.26 to 3.10) but did reduce all-cause hospitalization (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.83; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.54 to 0.92) and HF-specific hospitalization (RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.84; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.14 for 2.46), and patients reported improved Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire overall scores (mean difference: -7.1; 95% CI: -10.5 to -3.7; TSA-adjusted CI: -13.2 to -1.0). No evidence of differential effects across different models of delivery, including center- versus home-based programs, were found. CONCLUSIONS: This review supports the beneficial effects of ExCR on patient outcomes. These benefits appear to be consistent across ExCR program characteristics. GRADE and TSA assessments indicated that further high-quality randomized trials are needed.

BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure (HF) is a growing global health challenge. People with HF experience substantial burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous (2014) Cochrane systematic review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission among people with HF, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane Review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with HF with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction HF (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in the hospital/centre-based setting. OBJECTIVES: to determine the effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of people with heart failure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 29 January 2018. We also checked the bibliographies of systematic reviews and two trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared exercise-based CR interventions with six months' or longer follow-up versus a no exercise control that could include usual medical care. The study population comprised adults (> 18 years) with evidence of HF - either HFrEF or HFpEF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all identified references and rejected those that were clearly ineligible for inclusion in the review. We obtained full papers of potentially relevant trials. Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials, assessed their risk of bias, and performed GRADE analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 trials (5783 participants with HF) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 11 new trials (N = 1040), in addition to the previously identified 33 trials. Although the evidence base includes predominantly patients with HFrEF with New York Heart Association classes II and III receiving centre-based exercise-based CR programmes, a growing body of studies include patients with HFpEF and are undertaken in a home-based setting. All included studies included a no formal exercise training intervention comparator. However, a wide range of comparators were seen across studies that included active intervention (i.e. education, psychological intervention) or usual medical care alone. The overall risk of bias of included trials was low or unclear, and we downgraded results using the GRADE tool for all but one outcome.Cardiac rehabilitation may make little or no difference in all-cause mortality over the short term (≤ one year of follow-up) (27 trials, 28 comparisons (2596 participants): intervention 67/1302 (5.1%) vs control 75/1294 (5.8%); risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.21; low-quality GRADE evidence) but may improve all-cause mortality in the long term (> 12 months follow up) (6 trials/comparisons (2845 participants): intervention 244/1418 (17.2%) vs control 280/1427 (19.6%) events): RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02; high-quality evidence). Researchers provided no data on deaths due to HF. CR probably reduces overall hospital admissions in the short term (up to one year of follow-up) (21 trials, 21 comparisons (2182 participants): (intervention 180/1093 (16.5%) vs control 258/1089 (23.7%); RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.83; moderate-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 14) and may reduce HF-specific hospitalisation (14 trials, 15 comparisons (1114 participants): (intervention 40/562 (7.1%) vs control 61/552 (11.1%) RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84; low-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 25). After CR, a clinically important improvement in short-term disease-specific health-related quality of life may be evident (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire - 17 trials, 18 comparisons (1995 participants): mean difference (MD) -7.11 points, 95% CI -10.49 to -3.73; low-quality evidence). Pooling across all studies, regardless of the HRQoL measure used, shows there may be clinically important improvement with exercise (26 trials, 29 comparisons (3833 participants); standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.60, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.39; I² = 87%; Chi² = 215.03; low-quality evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent different models of ExCR delivery: centre vs. home-based, exercise dose, exercise only vs. comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone vs aerobic plus resistance programmes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane Review provides additional randomised evidence (11 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous version (2014) of this Cochane Review. Compared to no exercise control, CR appears to have no impact on mortality in the short term (< 12 months' follow-up). Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows that CR probably reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and may reduce HF-specific hospital admissions in the short term (up to 12 months). CR may confer a clinically important improvement in health-related quality of life, although we remain uncertain about this because the evidence is of low quality. Future ExCR trials need to continue to consider the recruitment of traditionally less represented HF patient groups including older, female, and HFpEF patients, and alternative CR delivery settings including home- and using technology-based programmes.

AIM: to quantify the impact of involving caregivers in self-management interventions on health-related quality of life of patients with heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. DESIGN: Systematic review, meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Searched: Medline Ebsco, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, the British Library and ProQuest. Search time frame; January 1990-March 2018. REVIEW METHODS: Randomized controlled trials involving caregivers in self-management interventions (≥2 components) compared with usual care for patients with heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A matched sample based on publication year, geographic location and inclusion of an exercise intervention of studies not involving caregivers were identified. Primary outcome of analysis was patient health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized controlled trials (1,701 participants: 1,439 heart failure; 262 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) involving caregivers (mean age 59; 58% female) were identified. Reported patient health-related quality of life measures included; Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire, St. George's respiratory questionnaire and Short-Form-36. Compared with usual care, there was similar magnitude in mean improvement in patient health-related quality of life with self-management interventions in trials involving caregivers (SMD: 0.23, 95% confidence interval: -0.15-0.61) compared with trials without caregivers (SMD: 0.27, 0.08-0.46). CONCLUSION: Within the methodological constraints of this study, our results indicate that involving caregivers in self-management interventions does not result in additional improvement in patient health-related quality of life in heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, involvement of caregivers in intervention delivery remains an important consideration and key area of research. IMPACT: Greater understanding and awareness is needed of the methodology of caregiver engagement in intervention development and delivery and its impact on patient outcomes.

In 2017, the British Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation published its official document detailing standards and core components for cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation. Building on the success of previous editions of this document (published in 2007 and 2012), the 2017 update aims to further emphasise to commissioners, clinicians, politicians and the public the importance of robust, quality indicators of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) service delivery. Otherwise, its overall aim remains consistent with the previous publications-to provide a precedent on which all effective cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programmes are based and a framework for use in assessment of variation in service delivery quality. In this 2017 edition, the previously described seven standards and core components have both been revised to six, with a greater focus on measurable clinical outcomes, audit and certification. The principles within the updated document underpin the six-stage pathway of care for CR, and reflect the extensive evidence base now available within the field. To help improve current services, close collaboration between commissioners and CR providers is advocated, with use of the CR costing tool in financial planning of programmes. The document specifies how quality assurance can be facilitated through local audit, and advocates routine upload of individual-level data to the annual British Heart Foundation National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation, and application for national certification ensuring attainment of a minimum quality standard. Although developed for the UK, these standards and core components may be applicable to other countries.

OBJECTIVE: to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on physical activity (PA) levels of patients with heart disease and the methodological quality of these studies. METHODS: Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsychINFO and SportDiscus) were searched without language restriction from inception to January 2017 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CR to usual care control in adults with heart failure (HF) or coronary heart disease (CHD) and measuring PA subjectively or objectively. The direction of PA difference between CR and control was summarised using vote counting (ie, counting the positive, negative and non-significant results) and meta-analysis. RESULTS: Forty RCTs, (6480 patients: 5825 CHD, 655 HF) were included with 26% (38/145) PA results showing a statistically significant improvement in PA levels with CR compared with control. This pattern of results appeared consistent regardless of type of CR intervention (comprehensive vs exercise-only) or PA measurement (objective vs subjective). Meta-analysis showed PA increases in the metrics of steps/day (1423, 95% CI 757.07 to 2089.43, p

AIMS: to undertake an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to assess the impact of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) in patients with heart failure (HF) on mortality and hospitalisation, and differential effects of ExCR according to patient characteristics: age, sex, ethnicity, New York Heart Association functional class, ischaemic aetiology, ejection fraction, and exercise capacity. METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomised trials of exercise training for at least 3 weeks compared with no exercise control with 6-month follow-up or longer, providing IPD time to event on mortality or hospitalisation (all-cause or HF-specific). IPD were combined into a single dataset. We used Cox proportional hazards models to investigate the effect of ExCR and the interactions between ExCR and participant characteristics. We used both two-stage random effects and one-stage fixed effect models. IPD were obtained from 18 trials including 3912 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Compared to control, there was no statistically significant difference in pooled time to event estimates in favour of ExCR although confidence intervals (CIs) were wide [all-cause mortality: hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.67-1.04; HF-specific mortality: HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.49-1.46; all-cause hospitalisation: HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76-1.06; and HF-specific hospitalisation: HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.72-1.35]. No strong evidence was found of differential intervention effects across patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation did not have a significant effect on the risk of mortality and hospitalisation in HF with reduced ejection fraction. However, uncertainty around effect estimates precludes drawing definitive conclusions.

Objective: to assess the extent by which programmes meet national minimum standards for the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) as part of the National Certification Programme for Cardiovascular Rehabilitation (NCP-CR). Methods: the analysis used UK National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation (NACR) data extracted and validated for the period 2013-2014 set against six NCP-CR measures deemed as important for the delivery of high-quality CR programmes. Each programme that achieved a single minimum standard was given a score of 1. The range of the scoring for meeting the minimum standards is between 1 and 6. The performance of CR programmes was categorised into three groups: high (score of 5-6), middle (scores of 3-4) and low (scores of 1-2). If a programme did not meet any of the six criteria, they were considered to have failed. Results: Data from 170 CR programmes revealed statistically significant differences among UK CR programmes. The principal findings were that, based on NCP-CR criteria, 30.6% were assessed as high performance with 45.9% as mid-level performance programmes, 18.2% were in the lower-level and 5.3% failed to meet any of the minimum criteria. Conclusions: This study shows that high levels of performance is achievable in the era of modern cardiology and that many CR programmes are close to meeting high performance standards. However, substantial variation, below the recommended minimum standards, exists throughout the UK. National certification should be seen as a positive step to ensure that patients, irrespective of where they live, are accessing quality services.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2015. OBJECTIVES: to compare the effect of home-based and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, exercise-capacity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease. SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) on 21 September 2016. We also searched two clinical trials registers as well as previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, including parallel group, cross-over or quasi-randomised designs) that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, gymnasium, sports centre) with home-based programmes in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure or who had undergone revascularisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on pre-defined inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third review author. Two authors independently extracted outcome data and study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE principles and a Summary of findings table was created. MAIN RESULTS: We included six new studies (624 participants) for this update, which now includes a total of 23 trials that randomised a total of 2890 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Participants had an acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation or heart failure. A number of studies provided insufficient detail to enable assessment of potential risk of bias, in particular, details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequencing and blinding of outcome assessment were poorly reported.No evidence of a difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in clinical primary outcomes up to 12 months of follow up: total mortality (relative risk (RR) = 1.19, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.16; participants = 1505; studies = 11/comparisons = 13; very low quality evidence), exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.13, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.02; participants = 2255; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence), or health-related quality of life up to 24 months (not estimable). Trials were generally of short duration, with only three studies reporting outcomes beyond 12 months (exercise capacity: SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.23; participants = 1074; studies = 3; moderate quality evidence). However, there was evidence of marginally higher levels of programme completion (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08; participants = 2615; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence) by home-based participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update supports previous conclusions that home- and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be similarly effective in improving clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding supports the continued expansion of evidence-based, home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes. The choice of participating in a more traditional and supervised centre-based programme or a home-based programme may reflect local availability and consider the preference of the individual patient. Further data are needed to determine whether the effects of home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation reported in the included short-term trials can be confirmed in the longer term and need to consider adequately powered non-inferiority or equivalence study designs.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the single most common cause of death globally. However, with falling CHD mortality rates, an increasing number of people live with CHD and may need support to manage their symptoms and improve prognosis. Cardiac rehabilitation is a complex multifaceted intervention which aims to improve the health outcomes of people with CHD. Cardiac rehabilitation consists of three core modalities: education, exercise training and psychological support. This is an update of a Cochrane systematic review previously published in 2011, which aims to investigate the specific impact of the educational component of cardiac rehabilitation. OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the effects of patient education delivered as part of cardiac rehabilitation, compared with usual care on mortality, morbidity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and healthcare costs in patients with CHD.2. To explore the potential study level predictors of the effects of patient education in patients with CHD (e.g. individual versus group intervention, timing with respect to index cardiac event). SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane review, by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) in June 2016. Three trials registries, previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies were also searched. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: 1. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the primary interventional intent was education delivered as part of cardiac rehabilitation.2. Studies with a minimum of six-months follow-up and published in 1990 or later.3. Adults with a diagnosis of CHD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on the above inclusion criteria. One author extracted study characteristics from the included trials and assessed their risk of bias; a second review author checked data. Two independent reviewers extracted outcome data onto a standardised collection form. For dichotomous variables, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived for each outcome. Heterogeneity amongst included studies was explored qualitatively and quantitatively. Where appropriate and possible, results from included studies were combined for each outcome to give an overall estimate of treatment effect. Given the degree of clinical heterogeneity seen in participant selection, interventions and comparators across studies, we decided it was appropriate to pool studies using random-effects modelling. We planned to undertake subgroup analysis and stratified meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression to examine potential treatment effect modifiers. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the quality of the evidence and the GRADE profiler (GRADEpro GDT) to create summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review included a total of 22 trials which randomised 76,864 people with CHD to an education intervention or a 'no education' comparator. Nine new trials (8215 people) were included for this update. We judged most included studies as low risk of bias across most domains. Educational 'dose' ranged from one 40 minute face-to-face session plus a 15 minute follow-up call, to a four-week residential stay with 11 months of follow-up sessions. Control groups received usual medical care, typically consisting of referral to an outpatient cardiologist, primary care physician, or both.We found evidence of no difference in effect of education-based interventions on total mortality (13 studies, 10,075 participants; 189/5187 (3.6%) versus 222/4888 (4.6%); random effects risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.05; moderate quality evidence). Individual causes of mortality were reported rarely, and we were unable to report separate results for cardiovascular mortality or non-cardiovascular mortality. There was evidence of no difference in effect of education-based interventions on fatal and/or non fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (2 studies, 209 participants; 7/107 (6.5%) versus 12/102 (11.8%); random effects RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.48; very low quality of evidence). However, there was some evidence of a reduction with education in fatal and/or non-fatal cardiovascular events (2 studies, 310 studies; 21/152 (13.8%) versus 61/158 (38.6%); random effects RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.56; low quality evidence). There was evidence of no difference in effect of education on the rate of total revascularisations (3 studies, 456 participants; 5/228 (2.2%) versus 8/228 (3.5%); random effects RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.71; very low quality evidence) or hospitalisations (5 studies, 14,849 participants; 656/10048 (6.5%) versus 381/4801 (7.9%); random effects RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21; very low quality evidence). There was evidence of no difference between groups for all cause withdrawal (17 studies, 10,972 participants; 525/5632 (9.3%) versus 493/5340 (9.2%); random effects RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.22; low quality evidence). Although some health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domain scores were higher with education, there was no consistent evidence of superiority across all domains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no reduction in total mortality, in people who received education delivered as part of cardiac rehabilitation, compared to people in control groups (moderate quality evidence). There were no improvements in fatal or non fatal MI, total revascularisations or hospitalisations, with education. There was some evidence of a reduction in fatal and/or non-fatal cardiovascular events with education, but this was based on only two studies. There was also some evidence to suggest that education-based interventions may improve HRQoL. Our findings are supportive of current national and international clinical guidelines that cardiac rehabilitation for people with CHD should be comprehensive and include educational interventions together with exercise and psychological therapy. Further definitive research into education interventions for people with CHD is needed.

Aims to assess the effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) for heart failure compared to either usual medical care (i.e. no CR) or centre-based CR on mortality, morbidity, exercise capacity, health-related quality of life, drop out, adherence rates, and costs. Methods Randomised controlled trials were initially identified from previous systematic reviews of CR. We undertook updated literature searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library to December 2015. A total of 19 trials with median follow up of 3 months were included — 17 comparisons of home-based CR to usual care (995 patients) and four comparing home and centre-based CR (295 patients). Results Compared to usual care, home-based CR improved VO2max (mean difference: 1.6 ml/kg/min, 0.8 to 2.4) and total Minnesota Living with Quality of Life score (− 3.3, − 7.5 to 1.0), with no difference in mortality, hospitalisation or study drop out. Outcomes and costs were similar between home-based and centre-based CR with the exception of higher levels of trial completion in the home-based group (relative risk: 1.2, 1.0 to 1.3). Conclusions Home-based CR results in short-term improvements in exercise capacity and health-related quality of life of heart failure patients compared to usual care. The magnitude of outcome improvement is similar to centre-based CR. Home-based CR appears to be safe with no evidence of increased risk of hospitalisation or death. These findings support the provision of home-based CR for heart failure as an evidence-based alternative to the traditional centre-based model of provision.

INTRODUCTION: the Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) trial is part of a research programme designed to develop and evaluate a health professional facilitated, home-based, self-help rehabilitation intervention to improve self-care and health-related quality of life in people with heart failure and their caregivers. The trial will assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention in patients with systolic heart failure and impact on the outcomes of their caregivers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: a parallel two group randomised controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation to the REACH-HF intervention plus usual care (intervention group) or usual care alone (control group) in 216 patients with systolic heart failure (ejection fraction

OBJECTIVE: to update the Cochrane systematic review of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) for heart failure. METHODS: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was undertaken. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2013. Trials with 6 or more months of follow-up were included if they assessed the effects of exercise interventions alone or as a component of comprehensive CR programme compared with no exercise control. RESULTS: 33 trials were included with 4740 participants predominantly with a reduced ejection fraction (

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation. This is an update of a review originally published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: to compare the effect of home-based and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease. SEARCH METHODS: to update searches from the previous Cochrane review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2014), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to October week 1 2014), EMBASE (Ovid, 1980 to 2014 week 41), PsycINFO (Ovid, 1806 to October week 2 2014), and CINAHL (EBSCO, to October 2014). We checked reference lists of included trials and recent systematic reviews. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, gymnasium, sports centre) with home-based programmes in adults with myocardial infarction (MI), angina, heart failure or who had undergone revascularisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the identified trials and data were extracted by a single author and checked by a second. Authors were contacted where possible to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen trials included a total of 2172 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation following an acute MI or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This update included an additional five trials on 345 patients with heart failure. Authors of a number of included trials failed to give sufficient detail to assess their potential risk of bias, and details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequence were particularly poorly reported. In the main, no difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in outcomes up to 12 months of follow up: mortality (relative risk (RR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.47, P = 0.46, fixed-effect), cardiac events (data not poolable), exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.10, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.08, P = 0.29, random-effects), modifiable risk factors (total cholesterol: mean difference (MD) = 0.07 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.11, P = 0.47, random-effects; low density lipoprotein cholesterol: MD = -0.06 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.15, P = 0.55, random-effects; systolic blood pressure: mean difference (MD) = 0.19 mmHg, 95% CI -3.37 to 3.75, P = 0.92, random-effects; proportion of smokers at follow up (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.21, P = 0.83, fixed-effect), or health-related quality of life (not poolable). Small outcome differences in favour of centre-based participants were seen in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD = -0.07 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.03, P = 0.001, fixed-effect), and triglycerides (MD = -0.18 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.02, P = 0.03, fixed-effect, diastolic blood pressure (MD = -1.86 mmHg; 95% CI -0.76 to -2.95, P = 0.0009, fixed-effect). In contrast, in home-based participants, there was evidence of a marginally higher levels of programme completion (RR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07, P = 0.009, fixed-effect) and adherence to the programme (not poolable). No consistent difference was seen in healthcare costs between the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review supports the conclusions of the previous version of this review that home- and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be equally effective for improving the clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in low risk patients after MI or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding, together with the absence of evidence of important differences in healthcare costs between the two approaches, supports the continued expansion of evidence-based, home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes. The choice of participating in a more traditional and supervised centre-based programme or a home-based programme should reflect the preference of the individual patient. Further data are needed to determine whether the effects of home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation reported in these short-term trials can be confirmed in the longer term. A number of studies failed to give sufficient detail to assess their risk of bias.

OBJECTIVES: to identify the needs of caregivers supporting a person with heart failure and to inform the development of a caregiver resource to be used as part of a home-based self-management programme. METHODS: a qualitative study informed by thematic analysis involving 26 caregivers in individual interviews or a focus group. RESULTS: Three distinct aspects of caregiver support in heart failure management were identified. Firstly, caregivers identified needs about supporting management of heart failure including: coping with the variability of heart failure symptoms, what to do in an emergency, understanding and managing medicines, providing emotional support, promoting exercise and physical activity, providing personal care, living with a cardiac device and supporting depression management. Secondly, as they make the transition to becoming a caregiver, they need to develop skills to undertake difficult discussions about the role; communicate with health professionals; manage their own mental health, well-being and sleep; and manage home and work. Thirdly, caregivers require skills to engage social support, and voluntary and formal services while recognising that the long-term future is uncertain. DISCUSSION: the identification of the needs of caregiver has been used to inform the development of a home-based heart failure intervention facilitated by a trained health care practitioner.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic heart failure (HF) experience a marked reduction in their exercise capacity, health-related quality of life, and life expectancy. Despite substantive evidence supporting exercise training in HF, uncertainties remain in the interpretation and understanding of this evidence base. Clinicians and healthcare providers seek definitive estimates of impact on mortality, hospitalisation and health-related quality of life, and which HF patient subgroups are likely to most benefit. The original Exercise Training Meta-Analysis for Chronic Heart Failure (ExTraMATCH) individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis conducted in 2004 will be updated by the current collaboration (ExTraMATCH II), to investigate the effects of exercise training in HF. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials have been identified from the updated 2014 Cochrane systematic review and the original ExTraMATCH IPD meta-analysis with exercise training of 3 weeks' duration or more compared with a non-exercise control and a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Particular outcomes of interest are mortality, hospitalisation and health-related quality of life plus key baseline patient demographic and clinical data. Original IPD will be requested from the authors of all eligible trials; we will check original data and compile a master dataset. IPD meta-analyses will be conducted using a one-step approach where the IPD from all studies are modelled simultaneously whilst accounting for the clustering of participants with studies. DISCUSSION: the information from ExTraMATCH II will help inform future national and international clinical and policy decision-making on the use of exercise-based interventions in HF and improve the quality, design and reporting of future trials in this field.

BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses consistently show the positive effect of exercise-based rehabilitation for heart failure (HF) on exercise capacity; however, the direction and magnitude of effects on health-related quality of life, mortality and hospital admissions in HF remain less certain. This is an update of a Cochrane systematic review previously published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: to determine the effectiveness of exercise-based rehabilitation on the mortality, hospitalisation admissions, morbidity and health-related quality of life for people with HF. Review inclusion criteria were extended to consider not only HF due to reduced ejection fraction (HFREF or 'systolic HF') but also HF due to preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF or 'diastolic HF'). SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane review. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue1, 2013) from January 2008 to January 2013. We also searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and PsycINFO (Ovid) (January 2008 to January 2013). We handsearched Web of Science, bibliographies of systematic reviews and trial registers (Controlled-trials.com and Clinicaltrials.gov). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of exercise-based interventions with six months' follow-up or longer compared with a no exercise control that could include usual medical care. The study population comprised adults over 18 years and were broadened to include individuals with HFPEF in addition to HFREF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all identified references and rejected those that were clearly ineligible. We obtained full-text papers of potentially relevant trials. One review author independently extracted data from the included trials and assessed their risk of bias; a second review author checked data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 trials with 4740 people with HF predominantly with HFREF and New York Heart Association classes II and III. This latest update identified a further 14 trials. The overall risk of bias of included trials was moderate. There was no difference in pooled mortality between exercise-based rehabilitation versus no exercise control in trials with up to one-year follow-up (25 trials, 1871 participants: risk ratio (RR) 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.27, fixed-effect analysis). However, there was trend towards a reduction in mortality with exercise in trials with more than one year of follow-up (6 trials, 2845 participants: RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02, fixed-effect analysis). Compared with control, exercise training reduced the rate of overall (15 trials, 1328 participants: RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.92, fixed-effect analysis) and HF specific hospitalisation (12 trials, 1036 participants: RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80, fixed-effect analysis). Exercise also resulted in a clinically important improvement superior in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (13 trials, 1270 participants: mean difference: -5.8 points; 95% CI -9.2 to -2.4, random-effects analysis) - a disease specific health-related quality of life measure. However, levels of statistical heterogeneity across studies in this outcome were substantial. Univariate meta-regression analysis showed that these benefits were independent of the participant's age, gender, degree of left ventricular dysfunction, type of cardiac rehabilitation (exercise only vs. comprehensive rehabilitation), mean dose of exercise intervention, length of follow-up, overall risk of bias and trial publication date. Within these included studies, a small body of evidence supported exercise-based rehabilitation for HFPEF (three trials, undefined participant number) and when exclusively delivered in a home-based setting (5 trials, 521 participants). One study reported an additional mean healthcare cost in the training group compared with control of USD3227/person. Two studies indicated exercise-based rehabilitation to be a potentially cost-effective use of resources in terms of gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life-years saved. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane review supports the conclusions of the previous version of this review that, compared with no exercise control, exercise-based rehabilitation does not increase or decrease the risk of all-cause mortality in the short term (up to 12-months' follow-up) but reduces the risk of hospital admissions and confers important improvements in health-related quality of life. This update provides further evidence that exercise training may reduce mortality in the longer term and that the benefits of exercise training on appear to be consistent across participant characteristics including age, gender and HF severity. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm the small body of evidence seen in this review for the benefit of exercise in HFPEF and when exercise rehabilitation is exclusively delivered in a home-based setting.

OBJECTIVES: to develop a model of heart failure patients' attitudes, beliefs, expectations, and experiences based on published qualitative research that could influence the development of self-management strategies. METHODS: a synthesis of 19 qualitative research studies using the method of meta-ethnography. RESULTS: This synthesis offers a conceptual model of the attitudes, beliefs, and expectations of patients with heart failure. Patients experienced a sense of disruption before developing a mental model of heart failure. Patients' reactions included becoming a strategic avoider, a selective denier, a well-intentioned manager, or an advanced self-manager. Patients responded by forming self-management strategies and finally assimilated the strategies into everyday life seeking to feel safe. DISCUSSION: This conceptual model suggests that there are a range of interplaying factors that facilitate the process of developing self-management strategies. Interventions should take into account patients' concepts of heart failure and their subsequent reactions.

Background: to assess the effects of patient education on mortality, morbidity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and healthcare costs in people with coronary heart disease (CHD). Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Data sources were Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and ongoing trial registries until August 2010. We also checked study references. The study selection was based on design (randomized controlled trials with follow up of at least 6 months, published from 1990 onwards), population (adults with CHD), intervention (patient education stated to be the primary intervention), and comparators (usual care or no educational intervention). Results: Thirteen studies (68,556 people with CHD) were included. Educational interventions ranged from two visits to a 4-week residential stay with 11 months of reinforcement sessions. Compared to no educational intervention, there was weak evidence that education reduced all-cause mortality (pooled relative risk (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13) and cardiac morbidity outcomes: myocardial infarction (pooled RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.48), revascularization (pooled RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.71), and hospitalization (pooled RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07) at median 18-months follow up. There was evidence to suggest that education can improve HRQoL and decrease healthcare costs by reductions in downstream healthcare utilization. Conclusions: Our review had insufficient power to exclude clinically important effects of education on mortality and morbidity. Nevertheless it supports the practice of CHD secondary prevention and rehabilitation programmes including education as an intervention. Further research is needed to determine the most effective and cost-effective format, duration, timing, and methods of education delivery. © 2012 the European Society of Cardiology.

Introduction: We conducted a systematic review to assess the effect of exercise training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF). Methods: a number of electronic databases were searched up to November 2011 to identify comparative studies of exercise training in HFPEF. Where possible, outcome data from included studies were pooled using meta-analysis. Results: Three randomised controlled trials, one non-randomised controlled trial and one pre-post study were included, for a total of 228 individuals. The combined duration of exercise programmes and follow-up ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. No deaths, hospital admissions or serious adverse events were observed during or immediately following exercise training. Compared to control, the change in exercise capacity at follow-up was higher with exercise training (between group mean difference: 3.0 ml/kg/min, 95% CI: 2.4 to 2.6). In the four studies, that reported the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire, there was evidence of a larger gain in health-related quality of life with exercise training (7.3 units, 3.3 to 11.4). The largest study showed some evidence of improvement in the E/E′ ratio with exercise training, but this was not confirmed in the other studies (overall - 0.9, - 3.8 to 2.0); E/A ratios were not changed. Conclusions: Exercise training for patients with HFPEF confers benefit in terms of enhancements in exercise capacity and health-related quality of life and appears to be safe. The impact on diastolic function remains unclear. Further trials should provide data on long term effects, prognostic relevance and cost-effectiveness. © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a systematic review to assess the effect of exercise training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF). METHODS: a number of electronic databases were searched up to November 2011 to identify comparative studies of exercise training in HFPEF. Where possible, outcome data from included studies were pooled using meta-analysis. RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials, one non-randomised controlled trial and one pre-post study were included, for a total of 228 individuals. The combined duration of exercise programmes and follow-up ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. No deaths, hospital admissions or serious adverse events were observed during or immediately following exercise training. Compared to control, the change in exercise capacity at follow-up was higher with exercise training (between group mean difference: 3.0 ml/kg/min, 95% CI: 2.4 to 2.6). In the four studies, that reported the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire, there was evidence of a larger gain in health-related quality of life with exercise training (7.3 units, 3.3 to 11.4). The largest study showed some evidence of improvement in the E/E' ratio with exercise training, but this was not confirmed in the other studies (overall -0.9, -3.8 to 2.0); E/A ratios were not changed. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise training for patients with HFPEF confers benefit in terms of enhancements in exercise capacity and health-related quality of life and appears to be safe. The impact on diastolic function remains unclear. Further trials should provide data on long term effects, prognostic relevance and cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES: to determine why so few patients with chronic heart failure in England, Wales and Northern Ireland take part in cardiac rehabilitation. DESIGN: Two-stage, postal questionnaire-based national survey. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Stage 1: 277 cardiac rehabilitation centres that provided phase 3 cardiac rehabilitation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland registered on the National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation register. Stage 2: 35 centres that indicated in stage 1 that they provide a separate cardiac rehabilitation programme for patients with heart failure. RESULTS: Full data were available for 224/277 (81%) cardiac rehabilitation centres. Only 90/224 (40%) routinely offered phase 3 cardiac rehabilitation to patients with heart failure. of these 90 centres that offered rehabilitation, 43% did so only when heart failure was secondary to myocardial infarction or revascularisation. Less than half (39%) had a specific rehabilitation programme for heart failure. of those 134 centres not providing for patients with heart failure, 84% considered a lack of resources and 55% exclusion from commissioning contracts as the reason for not recruiting patients with heart failure. Overall, only 35/224 (16%) centres provided a separate rehabilitation programme for people with heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure as a primary diagnosis are excluded from most cardiac rehabilitation programmes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. A lack of resources and direct exclusion from local commissioning agreements are the main barriers for not offering rehabilitation to patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a complex multifaceted intervention consisting of three core modalities: education, exercise training and psychological support. Whilst exercise and psychological interventions for patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) have been the subject of Cochrane systematic reviews, the specific impact of the educational component of CR has not previously been investigated. OBJECTIVES: 1. Assess effects of patient education on mortality, morbidity, health-related quality of life (HRQofL) and healthcare costs in patients with CHD.2. Explore study level predictors of the effects of patient education (e.g. individual versus group intervention, timing with respect to index cardiac event). SEARCH METHODS: the following databases were searched: the Cochrane Library, (CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE, HTA, NHSEED), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost) and CINAHL (EBSCOhost). Previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies were also searched. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: 1. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the primary interventional intent was education.2. Studies with a minimum of six-months follow-up and published in 1990 or later.3. Adults with diagnosis of CHD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected studies and extracted data. Attempts were made to contact all study authors to obtain relevant information not available in the published manuscript. For dichotomous variables, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived for each outcome. For continuous variables, mean differences and 95% CI were calculated for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs involving 68,556 subjects with CHD and follow-up from six to 60 months were found. Overall, methodological quality of included studies was moderate to good. Educational 'dose' ranged from a total of two clinic visits to a four-week residential stay with 11 months of follow-up sessions. Control groups typically received usual medical care. There was no strong evidence of an effect of education on all-cause mortality (Relative Risk (RR): 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13), cardiac morbidity (subsequent myocardial infarction RR: 0.63, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.48, revascularisation RR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.71) or hospitalisation (RR: 0.83, 95% CI:0.65 to 1.07). Whilst some HRQofL domain scores were higher with education, there was no consistent evidence of superiority across all domains. Different currencies and years studies were performed making direct comparison of healthcare costs challenging, although there is evidence to suggest education may be cost-saving by reducing subsequent healthcare utilisation.This review had insufficient power to exclude clinically important effects of education on mortality and morbidity of patients with CHD. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find strong evidence that education reduced all cause mortality, cardiac morbidity, revascularisation or hospitalisation compared to control. There was some evidence to suggest that education may improve HRQofL and reduce overall healthcare costs. Whilst our findings are generally supportive of current guidelines that CR should include not only exercise and psychological interventions, further research into education is needed.

Objective to determine the preferred means by which participants in a study of cardiac rehabilitation wish to be informed of the study's results. Design Postal questionnaire survey of participants in a randomized controlled trial. Setting Cornwall, southwest England. Participants Patients recruited to the Cornwall Heart Attack Rehabilitation Management Study (CHARMS). Method Participants recruited to CHARMS who were alive 3 years and 9 months after the trial was completed were contacted by letter and invited to return a reply slip with four short questions indicating how they would prefer to be informed about the published results of the study. Results in March 2008, 191/230 participants originally recruited to CHARMS were still alive. General practitioners deemed 166/191 (88%) survivors medically appropriate to be contacted through a postal survey, and 154/166 (93%) participants responded to the invitation to participate in the follow-up survey. 86% (143/166) of participants indicated that they wished to be informed about the results: 115 (80%) of these elected to receive information by letter and 25 (18%) of these preferred to attend a meeting. Men older than 65 years predominated in this latter group. Women respondents preferred to receive the study results by letter; none preferred communication by email or the web. Conclusion Survivors of acute myocardial infarction who participated in a RCT of cardiac rehabilitation wanted to receive a summary of the aggregate study results. Participants had preferences regarding how they would wish to be informed about the results of the study. Most participants preferred to be informed by letter or email, but some preferred the interaction of a group or a meeting. © 2009 the Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

To determine the preferred means by which participants in a study of cardiac rehabilitation wish to be informed of the study's results. Postal questionnaire survey of participants in a randomized controlled trial. Cornwall, southwest England. Patients recruited to the Cornwall Heart Attack Rehabilitation Management Study (CHARMS). Participants recruited to CHARMS who were alive 3 years and 9 months after the trial was completed were contacted by letter and invited to return a reply slip with four short questions indicating how they would prefer to be informed about the published results of the study. In March 2008, 191/230 participants originally recruited to CHARMS were still alive. General practitioners deemed 166/191 (88%) survivors medically appropriate to be contacted through a postal survey, and 154/166 (93%) participants responded to the invitation to participate in the follow-up survey. 86% (143/166) of participants indicated that they wished to be informed about the results: 115 (80%) of these elected to receive information by letter and 25 (18%) of these preferred to attend a meeting. Men older than 65 years predominated in this latter group. Women respondents preferred to receive the study results by letter; none preferred communication by email or the web. Survivors of acute myocardial infarction who participated in a RCT of cardiac rehabilitation wanted to receive a summary of the aggregate study results. Participants had preferences regarding how they would wish to be informed about the results of the study. Most participants preferred to be informed by letter or email, but some preferred the interaction of a group or a meeting.

Objective: to compare the effect of home based and supervised centre based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with coronary heart disease. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, without language restriction, searched from 2001 to January 2008. Review methods: Reference lists checked and advice sought from authors. Included randomised controlled trials that compared centre based cardiac rehabilitation with home based programmes in adults with acute myocardial infarction, angina, or heart failure or who had undergone coronary revascularisation. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of the identified trials and extracted data independently. Authors were contacted when possible to obtain missing information. Results: 12 studies (1938 participants) were included. Most studies recruited patients with a low risk of further events after myocardial infarction or revascularisation. No difference was seen between home based and centre based cardiac rehabilitation in terms of mortality (relative risk 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 2.66), cardiac events, exercise capacity (standardised mean difference -0.11, -0.35 to 0.13), modifiable risk factors (weighted mean difference systolic blood pressure (0.58 mm Hg, -3.29 mm Hg to 4.44 mm Hg), total cholesterol (-0.13 mmol/l, -0.31 mmol/l to 0.05 mmol/l), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.15 mmol/l, -0.31 mmol/l to 0.01 mmol/l), or relative risk for proportion of smokers at follow-up (0.98, 0.73 to 1.31)), or health related quality of life, with the exception of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.06, -0.11 to -0.02) mmol/l). In the home based participants, there was evidence of superior adherence. No consistent difference was seen in the healthcare costs of the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation. Conclusions: Home and centre based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be equally effective in improving clinical and health related quality of life outcomes in patients with a low risk of further events after myocardial infarction or revascularisation. This finding, together with the absence of evidence of differences in patients' adherence and healthcare costs between the two approaches, supports the further provision of evidence based, home based cardiac rehabilitation programmes such as the "Heart Manual." the choice of participating in a more traditional supervised centre based or evidence based home based programme should reflect the preference of the individual patient.

BACKGROUND: the burden of cardiovascular disease world-wide is one of great concern to patients and health care agencies alike. Traditionally centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation. OBJECTIVES: to determine the effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes compared with supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health-related quality of life and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with coronary heart disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: We updated the search of a previous review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2007, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from 2001 to January 2008. We checked reference lists and sought advice from experts. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, gymnasium, sports centre) with home-based programmes, in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure or who had undergone revascularisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were selected independently by two reviewers, and data extracted by a single reviewer and checked by a second one. Authors were contacted where possible to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve studies (1,938 participants) met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies recruited a lower risk patient following an acute myocardial infarction (MI) and revascularisation. There was no difference in outcomes of home- versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in mortality risk ratio (RR) was1.31 (95% confidence interval (C) 0.65 to 2.66), cardiac events, exercise capacity standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.13), as well as in modifiable risk factors (systolic blood pressure; diastolic blood pressure; total cholesterol; HDL-cholesterol; LDL-cholesterol) or proportion of smokers at follow up or health-related quality of life. There was no consistent difference in the healthcare costs of the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation appear to be equally effective in improving the clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in acute MI and revascularisation patients. This finding, together with an absence of evidence of difference in healthcare costs between the two approaches, would support the extension of home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes such as the Heart Manual to give patients a choice in line with their preferences, which may have an impact on uptake of cardiac rehabilitation in the individual case.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: to assess the effects of patient education compared with usual care on mortality and morbidity in patients with CHD.To explore the potential study level predictors of the effects of patient education in patients with CHD.

BACKGROUND: Home-based cardiac rehabilitation offers an alternative to traditional, hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation. AIM: to compare the cost effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation and hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation. METHODS: 104 patients with an uncomplicated acute myocardial infarction and without major comorbidity were randomized to receive home-based rehabilitation (n=60) i.e. nurse facilitated, self-help package of 6 weeks' duration (the Heart Manual) or hospital-based rehabilitation for 8-10 weeks (n=44). Complete economic data were available in 80 patients (48 who received home-based rehabilitation and 32 who received hospital-based rehabilitation). Healthcare costs, patient costs, and quality of life (EQ-5D4.13) were assessed over the 9 months of the study. RESULTS: the cost of running the home-based rehabilitation programme was slightly lower than that of the hospital-based programme (mean (95% confidence interval) difference - 30 pounds sterling (- 45 pounds sterling to - 12 pounds sterling) [-44 euro, -67 euro to -18 euro] per patient. The cost difference was largely the result of reduced personnel costs. Over the 9 months of the study, no significant difference was seen between the two groups in overall healthcare costs (78 pounds sterling, - 1102 pounds sterling to 1191 pounds sterling [-115 euro, -1631 euro to -1763 euro] per patient) or quality adjusted life-years (-0.06 (-0.15 to 0.02)). The lack of significant difference between home-based rehabilitation and hospital-based rehabilitation did not alter when different costs and different methods of analysis were used. CONCLUSIONS: the health gain and total healthcare costs of the present hospital-based and home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes for patients after myocardial infarction appear to be similar. These initial results require affirmation by further economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation in different settings.

BACKGROUND: Participation in cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction is sub-optimal. Offering home-based rehabilitation may improve uptake. We report the first randomized study of cardiac rehabilitation to include patient preference. AIM: to compare the clinical effectiveness of a home-based rehabilitation with hospital-based rehabilitation after myocardial infarction and to determine whether patient choice affects clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomized controlled trial with patient preference arms. SETTING: Rural South West England. METHODS: Patients admitted with uncomplicated myocardial infarction were offered hospital-based rehabilitation classes over 8-10 weeks or a self-help package of six weeks' duration (the Heart Manual) supported by a nurse. Primary outcomes at 9 months were mean depression and anxiety scores on the Hospital Anxiety Depression scale, quality of life after myocardial infarction (MacNew) score and serum total cholesterol. RESULTS: of the 230 patients who agreed to participate, 104 (45%) consented to randomization and 126 (55%) chose their rehabilitation programme. Nine month follow-up data were available for 84/104 (81%) randomized and 100/126 (79%) preference patients. At follow-up no difference was seen in the change in mean depression scores between the randomized home and hospital-based groups (mean difference: 0; 95% confidence interval, -1.12 to 1.12) nor mean anxiety score (-0.07; -1.42 to 1.28), mean global MacNew score (0.14; -0.35 to 0.62) and mean total cholesterol levels (-0.18; -0.62 to 0.27). Neither were there any significant differences in outcomes between the preference groups. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based cardiac rehabilitation with the Heart Manual was as effective as hospital-based rehabilitation for patients after myocardial infarction. Choosing a rehabilitation programme did not significantly affect clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: the benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) after myocardial infarction (MI) are increasingly recognised and is recommended in national guidelines. AIMS: to explore patients' experience of MI and to identify the factors which influence the choice patients make given the option of hospital or home-based CR after MI. METHOD: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA). This study was embedded within a randomised trial with preference arms. RESULTS: Seventeen participants were interviewed before their rehabilitation programme. Ten expressed a preference for home-based and seven for hospital-based rehabilitation. Common to both groups was shock and disbelief, which led to a loss of confidence. They expressed a strong desire to make lifestyle changes and looked for specific advice, guidance and support from knowledgeable experts. The hospital-based group had an emphasis on supervision during exercise, needed the camaraderie of a group, were willing to make travel arrangements and believed they lacked self-discipline. The home-based group believed that their CR should fit in with their lives rather than their lives fitting in with the rehabilitation programme and were self-disciplined. They disliked groups and expressed practical concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the factors that influence patient's choices may help professionals guide them to the most appropriate CR method and hence improve uptake.

Primary care has a key role in improving the health of patients who have had a myocardial infarction