MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324011588 · doi:10.2196/44179

Cardio4Health Study, a Cardiac Telerehabilitation Pilot Program Aimed at Patients After an Ischemic Event: Cross-sectional Study

2023· article· en· W4324011588 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Margarita Calvo-López, Raquel Arranz Tolós, Josefa Marin Expósito, Doménico Gruosso, Rut Andrea, Mercè Roque, Carlos Falces, Gemma Yago, Judith Saura Araguas, Núria Pastor, Marta Sitges, María Sanz‐de la Garza

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cardio · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGrupo Ferrer Internacional, S.A
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionMyocardial infarctionPhysical therapyRehabilitationTelerehabilitationHeart failureQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicineAerobic exerciseCardiologyTelemedicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Center-based cardiac rehabilitation programs (CRPs) reduce morbidity and mortality after an ischemic cardiac event; however, they are widely underused. Home-based CRP has emerged as an alternative to improve patient adherence; however, its safety and efficacy remain unclear, especially for older patients and female patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a holistic home-based CRP for patients with ischemic heart disease and evaluate its safety and impact on functional capacity, adherence to a healthy lifestyle, and quality of life. METHODS: The 8-week home-based CRP included patients of both sexes, with no age limit, who had overcome an acute myocardial infarction in the previous 3 months, had a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥40%, and had access to a tablet or mobile device. The CRP was developed using a dedicated platform designed explicitly for this purpose and included 3 weekly exercise sessions combining tailored aerobic and strength training and 2 weekly educational session focused on lifestyle habits, therapeutic adherence, and patient empowerment. RESULTS: We initially included 62 patients, of whom 1 was excluded for presenting with ventricular arrhythmias during the initial stress test, 5 were excluded because of incompatibility, and 6 dropped out because of a technological barrier. Ultimately, 50 patients completed the program: 85% (42/50) were male, with a mean age of 58.9 (SD 10.3) years, a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 52.1% (SD 6.72%), and 25 (50%) New York Heart Association functional class I and 25 (50%) New York Heart Association II-III. The CRP significantly improved functional capacity (+1.6 metabolic equivalent tasks), muscle strength (arm curl test +15.5% and sit-to-stand test +19.7%), weekly training volume (+803 metabolic equivalent tasks), adherence to the Mediterranean diet, emotional state (anxiety), and quality of life. No major complications occurred, and adherence was excellent (>80%) in both the exercise and educational sessions. In the subgroup analysis, CRP showed equivalent beneficial effects irrespective of sex and age. In addition, patient preferences for CRP approaches were equally distributed, with one-third (14/50, 29%) of the patients preferring a face-to-face CRP, one-third (17/50, 34%) preferring a telematic CRP, and one-third (18/50, 37%) preferring a hybrid approach. Regarding CRP duration, 63% (31/50) of the patients considered it adequate, whereas the remaining 37% (19/50) preferred a longer program. CONCLUSIONS: A holistic telematic CRP dedicated to patients after an ischemic cardiac event, irrespective of sex and age, is safe and, in our population, has achieved positive results in improving maximal aerobic capacity, weekly training volume, muscle strength, quality of life, compliance with diet, and anxiety symptoms. The preference for a center- or home-based CRP approach is diverse among the study population, emphasizing the need for a tailored CRP to improve adherence and completion rates.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CardioSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207