A controlled trial of hospital versus home-based exercise in cardiac patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Large numbers of patients who stand to benefit from the exercise training component of cardiac rehabilitation are not being served due to access issues. Home-based exercise training may be a potentially useful alternative to training in institutional environments. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the benefit of 6 months of hospital-based exercise training versus 6 months of monitored, home-based exercise training with respect to physical, quality of life, and social support outcomes in patients after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial of "direct-to-home" (Home; = 120) versus "direct-to-hospital" (Hosp; = 122) exercise training, 35-49 d post CABG surgery. The primary outcome was peak exercise capacity, measured by peak oxygen consumption (VO(2)) on a symptom-limited cycle ergometer exercise test. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (measured by the SF-36) and social support (measured by the ISEL). Measurements were taken at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of exercise training. RESULTS: The study groups had similar demographic and health profiles at baseline. Peak VO(2) improved significantly in both groups after 6 months of exercise training; 36% in the Hosp group (1,222.1 +/- 269.0 mL x min(-1) to 1,497.2 +/- 594.3 mL x min(-1); < 0.0001) and 31% in the Home group (1,260.3 +/- 306.5 mL x min(-1) to 1,433.4 +/- 589.7 mL x min(-1); < 0.05). The Home group reported greater total social support than the Hosp group at 3 (36.2 +/- 4.5 vs 34.0 +/- 6.7; < 0.0001) and 6 months (36.0 +/- 4.9 vs 34.6 +/- 6.4; = 0.05). The Home group demonstrated a greater improvement in health-related quality of life (physical) by 6 months in comparison to the Hosp patients (51.2 +/- 6.4 vs 48.6 +/- 7.1; = 0.004). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that low-risk CABG surgery patients may be served as well or better with a monitored, home-based exercise program than with an institution-based program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".