Skip to content

Cost-effectiveness of Outpatient Versus Hospital Cardiac Rehabilitation

Outpatient Cardiac Rehabilitation Versus Hospital. Cost-effectiveness Study

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01567189
Acronym
CERC1
Enrollment
138
Registered
2012-03-30
Start date
2012-04-30
Completion date
2013-04-30
Last updated
2012-03-30

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Coronary Heart Disease

Keywords

Exercise therapy, cost effectiveness, cardiac rehabilitation, home-based exercise

Brief summary

The hypothesis is that home based clinical rehabilitation (CR) is less expensive than hospital based CR with similar clinical effectiveness. The investigators will compare the results of two forms of CR on 1. direct and indirect healthcare costs 2. effectiveness on mortality, morbidity, modifiable risk factors control, functional capacity measured by exercise testing, health related quality of life and satisfaction rate 3. cost/effectiveness analysis

Detailed description

The main reasons for patients not to participate in a cardiac rehabilitation program that usually develops by group in the hospital or in a gym, are problems of access to hospital, disgust for participating in a group activity and problems in reconciling their work and / or home with the program schedule. These problems could be overcome by outcome cardiac rehabilitation and thus could increase the number of patients benefit from treatment in either the environment extra or intra-hospital. Low and medium coronary patients sent to cardiac rehabilitation program at our center within the first 12 weeks after presenting with acute coronary syndrome or been revascularized will be included in the study. The prescription of intensity of effort is based on heart rate reached during the stress test for the initial evaluation in all cases, although at home-program heart rate will be monitored using heart rate monitor and / or by the Borg scale. In this way outpatient group patient could performed training sessions individually and at the time of day that best suits their capabilities. The other program components: control of risk factors, health education and counseling will be identical in both groups of patients.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALCardiac rehabilitation

* Training sessions: 8 weeks of supervised physical training sessions. Stress intensity will be calculated from the peak heart rate reached during stress test: 60-70% during the first month and 70-85% during the second one. Patients will be advised to do at least 1 hour of outdoor exercise with the same intensity on the days when they do not attend hospital. * Health education sessions and relaxation sessions: one per week. * Smoking and diet checking: as recommended by doctor.

Sponsors

Basque Health Service
Lead SponsorOTHER_GOV

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* patients referred to cardiac rehabilitation program in the first twelve weeks after an acute coronary syndrome (myocardial infarction or unstable angina) or after percutaneous or surgical revascularization * who have no contraindication to participate in the program

Exclusion criteria

* contraindication to participate in the program * high-risk criteria for home cardiac rehabilitation.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Morbidity1 yearReadmissions, percutaneous or surgical revascularization
Cost1 year1. Direct costs 1. direct healthcare costs: hospital admissions for cardiovascular causes, percutaneous or surgical revascularization, medical and nursing consultation, physical training sessions, medical explorations including the analytic explorations, medication consumption, emergency department visits, depreciation of equipment used. 2. Direct costs other than health: Transfer the patient for his attention, passenger costs if necessary. 2. Indirect costs: working days lost during program participation (2 months, family overloads caused by participation in the program (2 months).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Quality of Life1 yearSF-12 version 2
Control of risk factors1 yearControl of risk factors at the end of training sessions and one year after the acute event: Percentage of patients achieving the therapeutic goal outlined in the clinical practice guidelines in each of the risk factors
Mortality1 yearAll cause mortality
Satisfaction1 yearsatisfaction questionnaire based on Osakidetza Basque Health Service questionnaires
Functional capacity1 yearOxygen consumption peak measured during exercise testing

Countries

Spain

Contacts

Primary ContactFernando Aros Borau
LUISFDO.AROSBORAU@osakidetza.net+34 945 007000

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026