Table 1.
Study objectives and patient characteristics.
| Study | Objectives | Patients | Mean Age Standard Deviation | Gender Female/Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| mTechs during home-based CR (IG) vs. outpatient CR (CG) | ||||
| Avila et al. [13] | evaluation of effects and costs of home-based exercise training with telemonitoring guidance | randomized: n = 90, IG: n = 30 (2 dropouts), CG: n = 30 (0 dropouts) | IG: 59 ± 13 CG: 62 ± 7 |
IG: 4/30 (13%) CG: 3/30 (10%) |
| Kraal et al. [20] | evaluation of effects and costs of home-based exercise training with telemonitoring guidance | randomized: n = 90, IG: n = 45 (4 dropouts), CG: n = 45 (8 dropouts) | IG: 58 ± 9 CG: 61 ± 9 |
IG: 5/45 (11%) CG: 5/45 (11%) |
| Maddison et al. [21] | evaluation of effects and costs of remotely monitored exercise-based cardiac telerehabilitation in adults with coronary heart disease | randomized: n = 162, IG: n = 82 (14 dropouts), CG: n = 80 (8 dropouts) | IG: 61 ± 13 CG: 62 ± 12 |
IG: 13/82 (16%) CG: 10/80 (13%) |
| Outpatient CR with (IG) vs. without mTechs (CG) | ||||
| Rosario et al. [31] | evaluation of effects of mHealth-based adjunct to outpatient CR regarding completion rate and exercise capacity | randomized: n = 66, IG: n = 33 (dropouts not reported), CG: n = 33 (dropouts not reported) | IG: not reported CG: not reported |
IG: 12/33 (16%) CG: 12/33 (16%) |
| Vogel et al. [32] a | evaluation of effects when smart wearables are used by patients undergoing an outpatient CR | randomized: n = 36, IG: n = 19 (6 dropouts), CG: n = 17 (1 dropout) | IG: 62 ± 9 CG: 64 ± 10 |
IG: 0/19 (0%) CG: 0/17 (0%) |
| Outpatient CR followed by home-based CR with mTechs (IG) vs. outpatient CR without further formal CR (CG) | ||||
| Avila et al. [13] | evaluation of effects and costs of home-based exercise training with telemonitoring guidance | randomized: n = 90, IG: n = 30 (2 dropouts), CG: n = 30 (4 dropouts) | IG: 59 ± 13 CG: 62 ± 8 |
IG: 4/30 (13%) CG: 3/30 (10%) |
| Duscha et al. [14] | evaluation of effects of a mobile health cardiovascular prevention program for patients recently graduated from CR | randomized: n = 32, IG: n = 21 (5 dropouts), CG: n = 11 (2 dropouts) | IG: 60 ± 8 CG: 67 ± 7 |
IG: 3/16 (19%) CG: 3/9 (33%) |
| Fang et al. [33] | evaluation of effects of home-based cardiac telerehabilitation program in low-risk patients after percutaneous coronary | randomized: n = 80, IG: n = 33 (7 dropouts), CG: no formal CR, n = 34 (6 dropouts) | IG: 60 ± 9 CG: 61 ± 10 |
IG: 12/33 (36%) CG: 13/34 (38%) |
| Frederix et al. [15] | evaluation of effects of a PA telemonitoring program for patients who completed phase II CR | randomized: n = 80, IG: n = 40 (6 dropouts), CG: n = 40 (8 dropouts) | IG: 58 ± 9 CG: 63 ± 10 |
IG: 8/40 (20%) CG: 6/40 (15%) |
| Frederix et al. [16] | evaluation of health benefits and cost-efficacy of an additional cardiac telerehabilitation program | randomized: n = 140, IG: n = 70 (8 dropouts), CG: n = 70 (6 dropouts) | IG: 61 ± 9 CG: 61 ± 8 |
IG: 10/62 (16%) CG: 13/64 (20%) |
| Piotrowicz et al. [12] | evaluation of safety, effectiveness, adherence to and acceptance of home-based telemonitored Nordic walking after cardiovascular hospitalization | randomized: n = 111, IG: n = 77 (2 dropouts), CG: n = 34 (2 dropouts) | IG: 54 ± 11 CG: 62 ± 13 |
IG: 11/75 (15%) CG: 1/32 (3%) |
| Piotrowicz et al. [30] | evaluation of quality-of-life outcomes after a hybrid comprehensive cardiac telerehabilitation after cardiovascular hospitalization | randomized: n = 850, IG: n = 425 (39 dropouts), CG: no formal CR, n = 425 (30 dropouts) |
IG: 63 ± 11 CG: 62 ± 10 |
IG: 48/425 (11%) CG: 49/425 (12%) |
| Skobel et al. [17] b | evaluation of effects of a mobile-based CR program during phase III rehabilitation | randomized: n = 118, IG: n = 55 (36 dropouts), CG: n = 63 (21 dropouts) | IG: 60 CG: 58 |
IG: 5/55 (9%) CG: 8/63 (8%) |
| Snoek et al. [19] | evaluation of acute and sustained effects of a heart-rate-based telerehabilitation program, following the completion of outpatient CR | randomized: n = 122, IG: n = 61 (1 dropout), CG: n = 61 (1 dropout) | IG: 60 ± 8 CG: 59 ± 11 |
IG: 11/61 (18%) CG: 11/61 (18%) |
| Vogel et al. [32] a | evaluation of effects when smart wearables are used by patients undergoing an outpatient CR | randomized: n = 36, IG: n = 19 (6 dropouts), CG: n = 17 (1 dropout) | IG: 62 ± 9 CG: 64 ± 10 |
IG: 0/19 (0%) CG: 0/17 (0%) |
a The study started with groups in outpatient CR with mTechs (IG) and outpatient CR without mTechs (CG). After completion of the outpatient CR, the IG continued home-based CR with mTechs, while the CG received no formal CR. Therefore, two distinct group comparisons are contained in the study. b Standard deviations were not reported.