Impact of phase II cardiac telerehabilitation on physical capacity in coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors' conclusion
CTR provides improvementsin CRF and functional capacity with no statistically significant difference compared with CBCR, and significantly greater improvements compared with usual care.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with coronary heart disease (CHD) in phase II cardiac rehabilitation (CR)
- Participants
- 2,717 adults25 studies
- Comparison
- Cardiac telerehabilitation vs centre-based CR or usual care
- Outcome
- Cardiorespiratory fitness (peak VO2) and functional capacity (6MWT, ISWT)
- Follow-up
- Short-term (3 months)
Methodological detailsrandom-effects, Knapp-Hartung adjustment
- Random-effects
- Knapp-Hartung adjustment
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
MD (95% CI)P value
CTRvs CBCRVO2peak; I2 = 83.7%
1.55(−1.60 to 4.70)
P = 0.168Between CTR and CBCR6MWT; I2 = 0.0%
15.01(−7.30 to 37.33)
P = 0.187CTRvs Usual careVO2peak; I2 = 0.0%
3.86(3.03–4.69)
P < 0.0001CTRvs Usual care6MWT; I2 = 62.3%
37.83(22.12–53.53)
P = 0.001Further pooled results
VO2peak and 6MWT, cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) vs CBCR · long-term (6-12 months)
- Comparable improvements persisted long-term
Original publication
Impact of phase II cardiac telerehabilitation on physical capacity in coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol. Published 28 May 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →