Purpose

To review the principles, advantages, and disadvantages of asynchronous and synchronous delivery models of home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR).

Methods

We reviewed recently published systematic reviews and other publications of randomized studies of asynchronous and synchronous HBCR to assess principles, outcomes, and limitations of those delivery methods compared with center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR).

Summary

While most studies prior to 2016 involved asynchronous HBCR approaches to care, studies since 2016 have included asynchronous or synchronous delivery models. Both delivery models have been shown to help provide core components of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Studies using either method have been shown to have similar short-term patient outcomes as CBCR, at least in low- to moderate-risk patients who have been studied. Asynchronous HBCR offers greater flexibility for patients and CR staff, while synchronous HBCR provides greater real-time oversight and feedback to patients.Asynchronous and synchronous HBCR is an option to consider for patients eligible for CR. Additional research is needed for both delivery models, applied separately or in combination, to compare their impact on shorter- and longer-term patient outcomes and to assess their impact in patient subgroups (referral diagnosis, women, elderly, underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups, patients at a higher cardiovascular disease risk, patients with multiple comorbid conditions, etc).

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a guideline-recommended, multidisciplinary program of exercise training, risk factor management, and psychosocial counseling for people with cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is beneficial but underused and with substantial disparities in referral, access, and participation. The emergence of new virtual and remote delivery models has the potential to improve access to and participation in CR and ultimately improve outcomes for people with CVD. Although data suggest that new delivery models for CR have safety and efficacy similar to traditional in-person CR, questions remain regarding which participants are most likely to benefit from these models, how and where such programs should be delivered, and their effect on outcomes in diverse populations. In this review, we describe important gaps in evidence, identify relevant research questions, and propose strategies for addressing them. We highlight 4 research priorities: (1) including diverse populations in all CR research; (2) leveraging implementation methodologies to enhance equitable delivery of CR; (3) clarifying which populations are most likely to benefit from virtual and remote CR; and (4) comparing traditional in-person CR with virtual and remote CR in diverse populations using multicenter studies of important clinical, psychosocial, and cost-effectiveness outcomes that are relevant to patients, caregivers, providers, health systems, and payors. By framing these important questions, we hope to advance toward a goal of delivering high-quality CR to as many people as possible to improve outcomes in those with CVD.