UCSF

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).