User login
Despite a 30% decline in heart disease mortality from 2001 to 2011, heart disease prevalence is on the rise, responsible for 1 of every 3 deaths in the U.S.1 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an evidence-based, secondary prevention strategy that has been proven effective in preventing future cardiovascular events and decreasing heart disease mortality.2-4 The American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (AACVPR) is the leading authority on CR and provides guidelines for CR programs. The AACVPR and the American Heart Association (AHA) published core components for CR programs deemed essential for all CR/secondary prevention programs, including evaluations, interventions, and expected outcomes.5 These core components are aimed at promoting a healthy lifestyle and increasing function and well-being while reducing injury, death, and the reoccurrence of disease.6
In a meta-analysis of 47 trials with 10,794 participants, CR reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality and hospital admissions by 26% and 18%, respectively.2 Performance measures (Class 1, Level A) recommend the following types of patients should be referred from the inpatient setting: “all patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of an acute myocardial infarction (MI) or chronic stable angina, or who during hospitalization have undergone coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), cardiac valve surgery, or cardiac transplantation.”7 However, despite overwhelming evidence and widespread endorsement (Class 1, Level A), service utilization, uptake, and patient adherence to CR programs remain suboptimal. In a U.S. study of claims from > 250,000 Medicare beneficiaries, < 30% of eligible patients participated
This treatment gap is echoed throughout the VHA. Schopfer and colleagues found that only 28% of the 124 VAMCs that provide inpatient care also offer a supervised, facility-based CR program.10 Furthermore, only 10.3% of eligible veterans participated in at least 1 CR session (VA or non-VA). On a systemic level, low patient referral rates and inadequate third-party reimbursement were the most common barriers to participation in CR.10,11 On a patient level, distance was by far the largest barrier to veterans receiving CR. Currently, 74% of the 9.3 million VA-enrolled veterans live at least 1 hour by car from a VA facility that offers CR.9 Within some regions of the VHA, there are no VA facility-based CR programs. For example, VISN 21 has no facility-based CR programs. At the same time, referral of eligible veterans to facility-based CR outside the VA remains low. Prior to April 2013, < 2% of qualified patients residing in VISN 21 were being referred to Non-VA CR programs, making it the VISN with the lowest participation rate for CR.
One potential solution that addresses both systemic and patient barriers to CR utilization is home-based CR. Veterans within the wide geographic area of VISN 21 are referred to San Francisco VAMC (SFVAMC) for ischemic heart disease, cardiovascular revascularization, and cardiac valve surgeries. In 2013, a comprehensive home-based CR program named The Healthy Heart Program was developed based on a successful evidence-based CVD secondary prevention program. The Healthy Heart Program is designed to be a physician-directed, nurse case-managed, customized exercise and lifestyle program that provides a safe and convenient way for veterans to participate in CR. Exercise and disease self-management education are the cornerstones of the Healthy Heart Program. The program’s multidisciplinary team includes physicians, nurses, a dietician, an exercise physiologist, and a health behavior psychologist.
[embed:render:related:node:132557]
An Alternative Approach
DeBusk and colleagues demonstrated that a physician-directed, nurse-managed, home-based cardiac risk-factor modification program improved smoking cessation, reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and increased exercise capacity compared with usual care.12 The results of this study helped pave the way for one of the first CR programs with a strong home-based element. The MULTIFIT program was jointly developed by the Stanford Coronary Rehabilitation Program and Kaiser Permanente (Oakland, CA) in 1995. MULTIFIT is a nurse-based care model for CVD prevention.
Further research that evaluated other home-based programs showed similar promise. A Cochrane review demonstrated that home- and facility-based CR programs were equal in cardiac risk factor reduction, reduced hospital readmissions and mortality rates, and improved quality of life (QOL).13 Cost-effectiveness also seemed to be similar in both home- and hospital-based CR
Referrals
To address the problems with referrals that plague other CR programs, staff of the Healthy Heart Program worked closely with interventional cardiology and the cardiothoracic team, including the clinical informatics coordinators, to develop an automatic referral system for CR evaluation. Consults for CR evaluation were embedded within the post-CABG and PCI order sets in the electronic health record. Laboratory troponin alerts were created to alert CR staff of patients with elevated troponins, which identified patients admitted for acute MI. Healthy Heart Program staff members received the referrals once a patient was admitted to the unit following their heart procedure. Early referrals for evaluation allowed staff to begin a chart review of all eligible patients and to follow the patient’s course of recovery. Most consults were generated during hospitalization for one of the indications; however, a minority of consults come from both the cardiology and primary care clinics.
Three Phases of CR
The AACVPR describes the challenges and opportunities found throughout the CR continuum.5 Over the past several decades, the continuum of care was more program centered and service utilization was more isolated. Today, CR is viewed as more process oriented and coordinates care across many professionals and services. Phase 1 inpatient CR begins in the hospital and is a shared responsibility between several services. Shortened hospital stays have led to innovative solutions for early ambulation, risk factor education, and discharge planning, including enrollment into phase 2 CR. Phase 2, also known as early outpatient, should begin within 1 to 2 weeks postevent in healthier patients and can last between 6 and 12 weeks postdischarge. Phase 3 (maintenance phase) should begin immediately at the conclusion of phase 2.
[embed:render:related:node:107250]
Phase 1
Prior to the advent of the Healthy Heart Program, secondary prevention education was not done at the bedside for SFVAMC patients following cardiac revascularization. The AACVPR recommends patient assessment, mobilization, risk-factor identification and education, and facilitation into outpatient CR as essential components of phase 1 CR.5 The Healthy Heart Program clinician initiates phase 1 CR by examining cardiac risk factor management for all referred patients. Physical and cardiac risk factor assessments are accomplished by completing a detailed chart review and interview with the patient. During this interview with the patient, the clinician evaluates cognitive function and readiness to learn. Staff will interview the patient further to assess the overall patient needs, including availability of social support, resources to maintain optimal health, and the need for secondary preventive education. For the PCI patient, the interview may occur in the hours following their procedure; for the surgical patient, this bedside visit typically occurs postoperative day 3 or 4.
A standardized cardiac risk factor evaluation tool was designed, which also serves as an education form to help guide the conversation on risk factor management. The interactive, patient-centered form includes opportunities to review risk, discuss current laboratory values (eg, lipids and hemoglobin A1c), and establish individualized goals based on patient preference and recommended guidelines. Healthy Heart Program staff assist the patient in formulating achievable goals using the SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time-related) criteria.19 Immediately after a heart event or procedure, patients often feel highly motivated to initiate lifestyle changes.20 However, PCI patients may have a short window of opportunity for learning between their readiness to learn state and before the activities of discharge. Staff use these opportunities as a teachable moment and to increase enrollment into outpatient CR (phase 2).
The provider performs a thorough chart review and bedside consultation to determine whether home-based CR is indicated, feasible, and appropriate. Not every patient that is referred will be enrolled in CR. Patients have the option to opt out. In addition, clinical staff adhere to the program protocol’s exclusion criteria.
Absolute contraindications for home enrollment include unstable angina, staged cardiac procedure (PCI and surgery), complex ventricular arrhythmias, severe or symptomatic aortic stenosis, decompensated heart failure, and uncontrolled hypertension (Table). Patients deemed high risk for home-based CR may be referred to a non-VA facility-based CR program. Risk stratification, using the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Grading of Angina Pectoris, is a continuous process that is used to identify patients who may move from moderate to high risk, both before and during the program.21,22
Phases 2 and 3
Phase 2 of the Healthy Heart Program CR includes physical activity, risk-factor modification, nutritional guidance, psychosocial modification, a return to previous activities, and an improved QOL. Prior to entry into the program, a submaximal exercise test, the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), is used as both a qualifying test and for developing the initial exercise prescription.22 The minimum 6MWT distance needed to qualify is 75 m for postoperative and 150 m for nonsurgical patients. The 6MWT is performed in-hospital for patients who were admitted for stable angina, PCI, and are > 4 days following acute MI.23 Cardiothoracic surgery patients are tested at their first follow-up clinic visit (typically 2-3 weeks postoperatively). The clinician monitors the heart rate with either a wearable device or via inpatient telemetry monitors. This exercise testing also serves as a motivational tool for patients to gain confidence in their ability to begin to exercise at home.
Each participant receives a workbook and a DVD titled An Active Partnership for the Health of Your Heart. A personal health journal is provided for documenting vital signs, activity, and dietary intake. In addition, each participant receives equipment on an as-needed basis, including resistance bands, a weight scale, a blood pressure cuff, a pedometer/heart rate monitoring device, an exercise peddler or stationary bike, and a dietary video. Baseline assessments include the General Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), Personal Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and a nutrition (Rate Your Plate) questionnaire. A cognitive function test (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) is used on an as-needed basis.
Nine 30-minute telephone follow-up sessions are scheduled within a 12-week period (weekly for the first 6 weeks, then biweekly). Topics covered are customized and include exercise; nutrition; medications; smoking cessation; and diabetes, hypertension, and weight management. Via a telephone follow-up session, the program nurses and patients codevelop an electronic individualized treatment plan that is tailored to the patient’s diagnosis, individual goals, and preferences. Clinicians teach participants how to self-monitor exercise, using a continuous heart rate monitoring device (Mio Alpha II or Fuse) and the 6-20 Borg dyspnea rating scale.24 Initially, moderate intensity exercise is prescribed with a target heart rate that is 60% to 75% of the 6MWT peak heart rate and an initial Borg scale target (11-14 on 20 point scale). The program physicians approve the treatment plan at the first patient visit and every 30 days until phase 2 is complete.
Patients who have completed early outpatient phase 2 CR can benefit from continuing to a phase 3 CR program.25 Participants of the Healthy Heart Program automatically are enrolled in phase 3, which is a long-term maintenance program that includes monthly or bimonthly phone calls for up to 1-year posthospital discharge. The goal is to support each veteran’s transition to a long-term healthy lifestyle that includes regular exercise.
[embed:render:related:node:136410]
Client-Clinician Partnership
The Healthy Heart Program establishes the client-clinician partnership prior to discharge for hospitalized patients. The nurse who initiates phase 1 at the bedside is the primary clinician throughout phases 2 and 3 with the exception of a dietician, psychologist, and/or exercise physiologist who provide follow-up calls as needed. Throughout these weekly follow-up phone sessions, the clinician gains an appreciation of the patient’s understanding of his or her disease, patterns of behavior, desire to change, confidence in being able to change, potential barriers, and responses to obstacles
Tailored Behavioral Change
The clinician’s responsibility is to listen to the patient’s concerns, assess their level of commitment for changing health behaviors, and provide guidance and support at the patient’s current level. The clinician applies the Transtheoretical Model founded on the Stages of Change principals to help understand and provide guidance based on the patient’s feelings about health behavior change.26 People are actively open to changing behaviors by only 20% at any given time.27 Therefore, action-oriented guidance for patients who are in the contemplative stage would not be helpful. This patient-centered approach promotes patients’ self-awareness, participation, and understanding of their decision-making role in their health management. Ultimately, individuals must take ownership of their health care maintenance for sustained behavioral change and medication management, and clinicians should facilitate that process.
Discussion
Secondary prevention strategies for heart disease continue to be underutilized. The Healthy Heart Program aims to improve participation in CR, improve QOL, help patients understand their heart disease, and support these patients psychologically. An advantage of this program is that it begins inpatient CR immediately following the heart event, when many patients often are more receptive to behavioral change support and guidance. Another advantage is that the program breaks down barriers to access, which is especially important in the veteran population. The Healthy Heart Program provides support and guidance for exercise and cardiac risk factor management to patients who otherwise would have not participated in any type of CR program.
A home-based CR program can be adopted independently or in conjunction with a facility-based program to which patients lack access. Furthermore, home-based CR programs function well as a phase 3 maintenance program at the completion of a traditional CR program. Since its inception, the Healthy Heart Program has increased the number of veterans enrolled in cardiac rehabilitation at the SFVAMC dramatically, from < 1% in FY 2012 to > 40% in FY 2015.
Program Limitations
One potential disadvantage of a home-based CR program is patients’ fear of returning to an exercise routine following a cardiac event. In addition, a lack of in-person supervision in home-based CR can lead patients to engage in less intensive activity than in facility-based CR. Other disadvantages include a lack of social support, less patient accountability, and safety concerns for sicker patients. Staff have consulted on several patients who expressed a lack of confidence in their ability to do well in this type of program, where accountability for exercising is self-reported. Staff referred these patients, who had the means to travel, to a non-VA facility-based CR program of their choice. Ideally, patients would have the choice between facility- or home-based programs or be able to choose a hybrid program that would best meet their needs.
Another identified limitation of this program was the lack of group support and in-person interactions with rehabilitation staff. Finally, although this program uses mobile devices with heart rate monitoring technology, these devices currently lack the capability to remotely share data with clinicians. Clinicians are reliant on the patient’s use of a personal health journal and memory. Subjective patient reporting has been found to be overestimated; therefore, more objective methods to measure important clinical outcomes are necessary.28
Conclusion
Facility-based CR is effective but underutilized. Alternative secondary programs are needed to help meet patient needs and overcome patient barriers. One promising approach to increase participation is home-based CR. Home-based CR programs have the potential to increase CR uptake and adherence. Home-based CR optimizes enrollment through evidence-based alternative models due to improved access. The future of CR will become highly individualized and multifaceted as a result of available mobile technologies and Internet-based tools, which will help increase the number of participants and expand the reach of cardiac risk factor management programs beyond the facility-based setting. A home-based program will be a valuable addition to facility-based programs as a stand-alone program or adopted into a hybrid program.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the VA Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.
1. Benjamin EJ, Blaha MJ, Chiuve SE, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2017 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Cicrulation. 2017;135(10):e146-e603.
2. Anderson L, Oldridge N, Thompson DR, Zwisler A, Rees K, Martin N, Taylor RS. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Am Coll Card. 2016;67:1-12.
3. Oldridge NB, Guyatt GH, Fischer ME, Rimm AA. Cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction. Combined experience of randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 1988;260:940-950.
4. Taylor RS, Brown A, Ebrahim S, et al. Exercise-based rehabilitation for patients with coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Med. 2004;116(10):682-692.
5. American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Guidelines for Cardiac Rehabilitation and Secondary Prevention Programs. 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2013.
6. Balady GJ, Williams MA, Ades PA, et al; American Heart Association Exercise, Cardiac Rehabilitation, and Prevention Committee, the Council on Clinical Cardiology; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism; American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Core components of cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention programs: 2007 update: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Exercise, Cardiac Rehabilitation, and Prevention Committee, the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Councils on Cardiovascular Nursing, Epidemiology and Prevention, and Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism; and the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Circulation. 2007;115(10):2675-2682.
7. Thomas R J, King M, Lui K, et al; Writing Committee Members. AACVPR/ACCF/AHA 2010 update: performance measures on cardiac rehabilitation for referral to cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention services: a report of the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures (Writing Committee to Develop Clinical Performance Measures for Cardiac Rehabilitation). Circulation. 2010;122(13):1342-1350.
8. Suaya JA, Shepard DS, Normand SL, Ades PA, Prottas J, Stason WB. Use of cardiac rehabilitation by Medicare beneficiaries after myocardial infarction or coronary bypass surgery. Circulation. 2007;116(15):1653-1662.
9. Balady GJ, Ades PA, Bitner VA, et al; American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. Referral, enrollment, and delivery of cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention programs at clinical centers and beyond: a presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;124(25):2951-2960.
10. Schopfer DW, Takemoto S, Allsup K, et al. Notice of Retraction and Replacement. Schopfer DW, et al. Cardiac rehabilitation use among veterans with ischemic heart disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(10):1687-1689. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1726-1727.
11. Ferguson EE. Cardiac rehabilitation—an effective and comprehensive but underutilized program to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with CVD. US Cardiology. 2006;3(2):14-16.
12. DeBusk RF, Miller NH, Superko HR, et al. A case-management system for coronary risk factor modification after acute myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120(9):721-729.
13. Buckingham SA, Taylor RS, Jolly K, et al. Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation: abridged Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Heart. 2016;3(2):e000463.
14. Taylor RS, Watt A, Dalal HM, et al. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation versus hospital-based rehabilitation: a cost effectiveness analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2007;119(2):196-201.
15. Kotb A, Hsieh S, Wells GA. The effect of telephone support interventions on coronary artery disease (CAD) patient outcomes during cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e96581.
16. Grace SL, McDonald J, Fishman D, Caruso V. Patient preferences for home-based versus hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 2005;25(1):24-29.
17. Wakefield B, Drwal K, Scherubel M, Klobucar T, Johnson S, Kaboli P. Feasibility and effectiveness of remote, telephone-based delivery of cardiac rehabilitation. Telemed J E Health. 2014;20(1):32-38.
18. Smith SC, Benjamin EJ, Bonow RO, et al; World Heart Federation and the Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. AHA/ACCF secondary prevention and risk reduction therapy for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2011 update: a guideline from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology Foundation. Circulation. 2011;124(22):2458-2473.
19. Doran GT. There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Manage Rev. 1981;70(11):35-36.
20. Dullaghan L, Lusk L, Donnelly P, McGeough M, Fitzsimons D. Communicating with people who have experienced heart attack. Emerg Nurse. 2013;21(6):33-36.
21. Campeau L. Letter: grading of angina pectoris. Circulation. 1976;54(3):522-523.
22. Fletcher GF, Balady GJ, Armstrong EA, et al. Exercise standards for testing and training: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2001;104(14):1694-1740.
23. Gibbons RJ, Balady GJ, Bricker JT, et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines. Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Exercise Testing). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40(8):1531-1540.
24. Borg G. Borg’s Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1998.
25. Seki E, Watanabe Y, Sunayama S, et al. Effects of phase III cardiac rehabilitation programs on health-related quality of life in elderly patients with coronary artery disease: Juntendo Cardiac Rehabilitation Program (J-CARP). Circ J. 2003;67(1):73-77.
26. The transtheoretical model. Pro-Change Behavior Systems, Inc. http://www.prochange.com/transtheoretical-model-of-behavior-change. Published 2016. Accessed April 6, 2017.
27. Prochaska JO, Ever KE, Castle PH, et al. Enhancing multiple domains of well-being by decreasing multiple health risk behaviors: a randomized clinical trial. Popul Health Manag. 2012;15(5):276-286.
28. Prince SA, Adamo KB, Hamel ME, Hardt J, Connor Gorber S, Tremblay M. A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5:56.
Despite a 30% decline in heart disease mortality from 2001 to 2011, heart disease prevalence is on the rise, responsible for 1 of every 3 deaths in the U.S.1 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an evidence-based, secondary prevention strategy that has been proven effective in preventing future cardiovascular events and decreasing heart disease mortality.2-4 The American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (AACVPR) is the leading authority on CR and provides guidelines for CR programs. The AACVPR and the American Heart Association (AHA) published core components for CR programs deemed essential for all CR/secondary prevention programs, including evaluations, interventions, and expected outcomes.5 These core components are aimed at promoting a healthy lifestyle and increasing function and well-being while reducing injury, death, and the reoccurrence of disease.6
In a meta-analysis of 47 trials with 10,794 participants, CR reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality and hospital admissions by 26% and 18%, respectively.2 Performance measures (Class 1, Level A) recommend the following types of patients should be referred from the inpatient setting: “all patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of an acute myocardial infarction (MI) or chronic stable angina, or who during hospitalization have undergone coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), cardiac valve surgery, or cardiac transplantation.”7 However, despite overwhelming evidence and widespread endorsement (Class 1, Level A), service utilization, uptake, and patient adherence to CR programs remain suboptimal. In a U.S. study of claims from > 250,000 Medicare beneficiaries, < 30% of eligible patients participated
This treatment gap is echoed throughout the VHA. Schopfer and colleagues found that only 28% of the 124 VAMCs that provide inpatient care also offer a supervised, facility-based CR program.10 Furthermore, only 10.3% of eligible veterans participated in at least 1 CR session (VA or non-VA). On a systemic level, low patient referral rates and inadequate third-party reimbursement were the most common barriers to participation in CR.10,11 On a patient level, distance was by far the largest barrier to veterans receiving CR. Currently, 74% of the 9.3 million VA-enrolled veterans live at least 1 hour by car from a VA facility that offers CR.9 Within some regions of the VHA, there are no VA facility-based CR programs. For example, VISN 21 has no facility-based CR programs. At the same time, referral of eligible veterans to facility-based CR outside the VA remains low. Prior to April 2013, < 2% of qualified patients residing in VISN 21 were being referred to Non-VA CR programs, making it the VISN with the lowest participation rate for CR.
One potential solution that addresses both systemic and patient barriers to CR utilization is home-based CR. Veterans within the wide geographic area of VISN 21 are referred to San Francisco VAMC (SFVAMC) for ischemic heart disease, cardiovascular revascularization, and cardiac valve surgeries. In 2013, a comprehensive home-based CR program named The Healthy Heart Program was developed based on a successful evidence-based CVD secondary prevention program. The Healthy Heart Program is designed to be a physician-directed, nurse case-managed, customized exercise and lifestyle program that provides a safe and convenient way for veterans to participate in CR. Exercise and disease self-management education are the cornerstones of the Healthy Heart Program. The program’s multidisciplinary team includes physicians, nurses, a dietician, an exercise physiologist, and a health behavior psychologist.
[embed:render:related:node:132557]
An Alternative Approach
DeBusk and colleagues demonstrated that a physician-directed, nurse-managed, home-based cardiac risk-factor modification program improved smoking cessation, reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and increased exercise capacity compared with usual care.12 The results of this study helped pave the way for one of the first CR programs with a strong home-based element. The MULTIFIT program was jointly developed by the Stanford Coronary Rehabilitation Program and Kaiser Permanente (Oakland, CA) in 1995. MULTIFIT is a nurse-based care model for CVD prevention.
Further research that evaluated other home-based programs showed similar promise. A Cochrane review demonstrated that home- and facility-based CR programs were equal in cardiac risk factor reduction, reduced hospital readmissions and mortality rates, and improved quality of life (QOL).13 Cost-effectiveness also seemed to be similar in both home- and hospital-based CR
Referrals
To address the problems with referrals that plague other CR programs, staff of the Healthy Heart Program worked closely with interventional cardiology and the cardiothoracic team, including the clinical informatics coordinators, to develop an automatic referral system for CR evaluation. Consults for CR evaluation were embedded within the post-CABG and PCI order sets in the electronic health record. Laboratory troponin alerts were created to alert CR staff of patients with elevated troponins, which identified patients admitted for acute MI. Healthy Heart Program staff members received the referrals once a patient was admitted to the unit following their heart procedure. Early referrals for evaluation allowed staff to begin a chart review of all eligible patients and to follow the patient’s course of recovery. Most consults were generated during hospitalization for one of the indications; however, a minority of consults come from both the cardiology and primary care clinics.
Three Phases of CR
The AACVPR describes the challenges and opportunities found throughout the CR continuum.5 Over the past several decades, the continuum of care was more program centered and service utilization was more isolated. Today, CR is viewed as more process oriented and coordinates care across many professionals and services. Phase 1 inpatient CR begins in the hospital and is a shared responsibility between several services. Shortened hospital stays have led to innovative solutions for early ambulation, risk factor education, and discharge planning, including enrollment into phase 2 CR. Phase 2, also known as early outpatient, should begin within 1 to 2 weeks postevent in healthier patients and can last between 6 and 12 weeks postdischarge. Phase 3 (maintenance phase) should begin immediately at the conclusion of phase 2.
[embed:render:related:node:107250]
Phase 1
Prior to the advent of the Healthy Heart Program, secondary prevention education was not done at the bedside for SFVAMC patients following cardiac revascularization. The AACVPR recommends patient assessment, mobilization, risk-factor identification and education, and facilitation into outpatient CR as essential components of phase 1 CR.5 The Healthy Heart Program clinician initiates phase 1 CR by examining cardiac risk factor management for all referred patients. Physical and cardiac risk factor assessments are accomplished by completing a detailed chart review and interview with the patient. During this interview with the patient, the clinician evaluates cognitive function and readiness to learn. Staff will interview the patient further to assess the overall patient needs, including availability of social support, resources to maintain optimal health, and the need for secondary preventive education. For the PCI patient, the interview may occur in the hours following their procedure; for the surgical patient, this bedside visit typically occurs postoperative day 3 or 4.
A standardized cardiac risk factor evaluation tool was designed, which also serves as an education form to help guide the conversation on risk factor management. The interactive, patient-centered form includes opportunities to review risk, discuss current laboratory values (eg, lipids and hemoglobin A1c), and establish individualized goals based on patient preference and recommended guidelines. Healthy Heart Program staff assist the patient in formulating achievable goals using the SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time-related) criteria.19 Immediately after a heart event or procedure, patients often feel highly motivated to initiate lifestyle changes.20 However, PCI patients may have a short window of opportunity for learning between their readiness to learn state and before the activities of discharge. Staff use these opportunities as a teachable moment and to increase enrollment into outpatient CR (phase 2).
The provider performs a thorough chart review and bedside consultation to determine whether home-based CR is indicated, feasible, and appropriate. Not every patient that is referred will be enrolled in CR. Patients have the option to opt out. In addition, clinical staff adhere to the program protocol’s exclusion criteria.
Absolute contraindications for home enrollment include unstable angina, staged cardiac procedure (PCI and surgery), complex ventricular arrhythmias, severe or symptomatic aortic stenosis, decompensated heart failure, and uncontrolled hypertension (Table). Patients deemed high risk for home-based CR may be referred to a non-VA facility-based CR program. Risk stratification, using the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Grading of Angina Pectoris, is a continuous process that is used to identify patients who may move from moderate to high risk, both before and during the program.21,22
Phases 2 and 3
Phase 2 of the Healthy Heart Program CR includes physical activity, risk-factor modification, nutritional guidance, psychosocial modification, a return to previous activities, and an improved QOL. Prior to entry into the program, a submaximal exercise test, the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), is used as both a qualifying test and for developing the initial exercise prescription.22 The minimum 6MWT distance needed to qualify is 75 m for postoperative and 150 m for nonsurgical patients. The 6MWT is performed in-hospital for patients who were admitted for stable angina, PCI, and are > 4 days following acute MI.23 Cardiothoracic surgery patients are tested at their first follow-up clinic visit (typically 2-3 weeks postoperatively). The clinician monitors the heart rate with either a wearable device or via inpatient telemetry monitors. This exercise testing also serves as a motivational tool for patients to gain confidence in their ability to begin to exercise at home.
Each participant receives a workbook and a DVD titled An Active Partnership for the Health of Your Heart. A personal health journal is provided for documenting vital signs, activity, and dietary intake. In addition, each participant receives equipment on an as-needed basis, including resistance bands, a weight scale, a blood pressure cuff, a pedometer/heart rate monitoring device, an exercise peddler or stationary bike, and a dietary video. Baseline assessments include the General Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), Personal Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and a nutrition (Rate Your Plate) questionnaire. A cognitive function test (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) is used on an as-needed basis.
Nine 30-minute telephone follow-up sessions are scheduled within a 12-week period (weekly for the first 6 weeks, then biweekly). Topics covered are customized and include exercise; nutrition; medications; smoking cessation; and diabetes, hypertension, and weight management. Via a telephone follow-up session, the program nurses and patients codevelop an electronic individualized treatment plan that is tailored to the patient’s diagnosis, individual goals, and preferences. Clinicians teach participants how to self-monitor exercise, using a continuous heart rate monitoring device (Mio Alpha II or Fuse) and the 6-20 Borg dyspnea rating scale.24 Initially, moderate intensity exercise is prescribed with a target heart rate that is 60% to 75% of the 6MWT peak heart rate and an initial Borg scale target (11-14 on 20 point scale). The program physicians approve the treatment plan at the first patient visit and every 30 days until phase 2 is complete.
Patients who have completed early outpatient phase 2 CR can benefit from continuing to a phase 3 CR program.25 Participants of the Healthy Heart Program automatically are enrolled in phase 3, which is a long-term maintenance program that includes monthly or bimonthly phone calls for up to 1-year posthospital discharge. The goal is to support each veteran’s transition to a long-term healthy lifestyle that includes regular exercise.
[embed:render:related:node:136410]
Client-Clinician Partnership
The Healthy Heart Program establishes the client-clinician partnership prior to discharge for hospitalized patients. The nurse who initiates phase 1 at the bedside is the primary clinician throughout phases 2 and 3 with the exception of a dietician, psychologist, and/or exercise physiologist who provide follow-up calls as needed. Throughout these weekly follow-up phone sessions, the clinician gains an appreciation of the patient’s understanding of his or her disease, patterns of behavior, desire to change, confidence in being able to change, potential barriers, and responses to obstacles
Tailored Behavioral Change
The clinician’s responsibility is to listen to the patient’s concerns, assess their level of commitment for changing health behaviors, and provide guidance and support at the patient’s current level. The clinician applies the Transtheoretical Model founded on the Stages of Change principals to help understand and provide guidance based on the patient’s feelings about health behavior change.26 People are actively open to changing behaviors by only 20% at any given time.27 Therefore, action-oriented guidance for patients who are in the contemplative stage would not be helpful. This patient-centered approach promotes patients’ self-awareness, participation, and understanding of their decision-making role in their health management. Ultimately, individuals must take ownership of their health care maintenance for sustained behavioral change and medication management, and clinicians should facilitate that process.
Discussion
Secondary prevention strategies for heart disease continue to be underutilized. The Healthy Heart Program aims to improve participation in CR, improve QOL, help patients understand their heart disease, and support these patients psychologically. An advantage of this program is that it begins inpatient CR immediately following the heart event, when many patients often are more receptive to behavioral change support and guidance. Another advantage is that the program breaks down barriers to access, which is especially important in the veteran population. The Healthy Heart Program provides support and guidance for exercise and cardiac risk factor management to patients who otherwise would have not participated in any type of CR program.
A home-based CR program can be adopted independently or in conjunction with a facility-based program to which patients lack access. Furthermore, home-based CR programs function well as a phase 3 maintenance program at the completion of a traditional CR program. Since its inception, the Healthy Heart Program has increased the number of veterans enrolled in cardiac rehabilitation at the SFVAMC dramatically, from < 1% in FY 2012 to > 40% in FY 2015.
Program Limitations
One potential disadvantage of a home-based CR program is patients’ fear of returning to an exercise routine following a cardiac event. In addition, a lack of in-person supervision in home-based CR can lead patients to engage in less intensive activity than in facility-based CR. Other disadvantages include a lack of social support, less patient accountability, and safety concerns for sicker patients. Staff have consulted on several patients who expressed a lack of confidence in their ability to do well in this type of program, where accountability for exercising is self-reported. Staff referred these patients, who had the means to travel, to a non-VA facility-based CR program of their choice. Ideally, patients would have the choice between facility- or home-based programs or be able to choose a hybrid program that would best meet their needs.
Another identified limitation of this program was the lack of group support and in-person interactions with rehabilitation staff. Finally, although this program uses mobile devices with heart rate monitoring technology, these devices currently lack the capability to remotely share data with clinicians. Clinicians are reliant on the patient’s use of a personal health journal and memory. Subjective patient reporting has been found to be overestimated; therefore, more objective methods to measure important clinical outcomes are necessary.28
Conclusion
Facility-based CR is effective but underutilized. Alternative secondary programs are needed to help meet patient needs and overcome patient barriers. One promising approach to increase participation is home-based CR. Home-based CR programs have the potential to increase CR uptake and adherence. Home-based CR optimizes enrollment through evidence-based alternative models due to improved access. The future of CR will become highly individualized and multifaceted as a result of available mobile technologies and Internet-based tools, which will help increase the number of participants and expand the reach of cardiac risk factor management programs beyond the facility-based setting. A home-based program will be a valuable addition to facility-based programs as a stand-alone program or adopted into a hybrid program.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the VA Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.
Despite a 30% decline in heart disease mortality from 2001 to 2011, heart disease prevalence is on the rise, responsible for 1 of every 3 deaths in the U.S.1 Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an evidence-based, secondary prevention strategy that has been proven effective in preventing future cardiovascular events and decreasing heart disease mortality.2-4 The American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (AACVPR) is the leading authority on CR and provides guidelines for CR programs. The AACVPR and the American Heart Association (AHA) published core components for CR programs deemed essential for all CR/secondary prevention programs, including evaluations, interventions, and expected outcomes.5 These core components are aimed at promoting a healthy lifestyle and increasing function and well-being while reducing injury, death, and the reoccurrence of disease.6
In a meta-analysis of 47 trials with 10,794 participants, CR reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality and hospital admissions by 26% and 18%, respectively.2 Performance measures (Class 1, Level A) recommend the following types of patients should be referred from the inpatient setting: “all patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of an acute myocardial infarction (MI) or chronic stable angina, or who during hospitalization have undergone coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), cardiac valve surgery, or cardiac transplantation.”7 However, despite overwhelming evidence and widespread endorsement (Class 1, Level A), service utilization, uptake, and patient adherence to CR programs remain suboptimal. In a U.S. study of claims from > 250,000 Medicare beneficiaries, < 30% of eligible patients participated
This treatment gap is echoed throughout the VHA. Schopfer and colleagues found that only 28% of the 124 VAMCs that provide inpatient care also offer a supervised, facility-based CR program.10 Furthermore, only 10.3% of eligible veterans participated in at least 1 CR session (VA or non-VA). On a systemic level, low patient referral rates and inadequate third-party reimbursement were the most common barriers to participation in CR.10,11 On a patient level, distance was by far the largest barrier to veterans receiving CR. Currently, 74% of the 9.3 million VA-enrolled veterans live at least 1 hour by car from a VA facility that offers CR.9 Within some regions of the VHA, there are no VA facility-based CR programs. For example, VISN 21 has no facility-based CR programs. At the same time, referral of eligible veterans to facility-based CR outside the VA remains low. Prior to April 2013, < 2% of qualified patients residing in VISN 21 were being referred to Non-VA CR programs, making it the VISN with the lowest participation rate for CR.
One potential solution that addresses both systemic and patient barriers to CR utilization is home-based CR. Veterans within the wide geographic area of VISN 21 are referred to San Francisco VAMC (SFVAMC) for ischemic heart disease, cardiovascular revascularization, and cardiac valve surgeries. In 2013, a comprehensive home-based CR program named The Healthy Heart Program was developed based on a successful evidence-based CVD secondary prevention program. The Healthy Heart Program is designed to be a physician-directed, nurse case-managed, customized exercise and lifestyle program that provides a safe and convenient way for veterans to participate in CR. Exercise and disease self-management education are the cornerstones of the Healthy Heart Program. The program’s multidisciplinary team includes physicians, nurses, a dietician, an exercise physiologist, and a health behavior psychologist.
[embed:render:related:node:132557]
An Alternative Approach
DeBusk and colleagues demonstrated that a physician-directed, nurse-managed, home-based cardiac risk-factor modification program improved smoking cessation, reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and increased exercise capacity compared with usual care.12 The results of this study helped pave the way for one of the first CR programs with a strong home-based element. The MULTIFIT program was jointly developed by the Stanford Coronary Rehabilitation Program and Kaiser Permanente (Oakland, CA) in 1995. MULTIFIT is a nurse-based care model for CVD prevention.
Further research that evaluated other home-based programs showed similar promise. A Cochrane review demonstrated that home- and facility-based CR programs were equal in cardiac risk factor reduction, reduced hospital readmissions and mortality rates, and improved quality of life (QOL).13 Cost-effectiveness also seemed to be similar in both home- and hospital-based CR
Referrals
To address the problems with referrals that plague other CR programs, staff of the Healthy Heart Program worked closely with interventional cardiology and the cardiothoracic team, including the clinical informatics coordinators, to develop an automatic referral system for CR evaluation. Consults for CR evaluation were embedded within the post-CABG and PCI order sets in the electronic health record. Laboratory troponin alerts were created to alert CR staff of patients with elevated troponins, which identified patients admitted for acute MI. Healthy Heart Program staff members received the referrals once a patient was admitted to the unit following their heart procedure. Early referrals for evaluation allowed staff to begin a chart review of all eligible patients and to follow the patient’s course of recovery. Most consults were generated during hospitalization for one of the indications; however, a minority of consults come from both the cardiology and primary care clinics.
Three Phases of CR
The AACVPR describes the challenges and opportunities found throughout the CR continuum.5 Over the past several decades, the continuum of care was more program centered and service utilization was more isolated. Today, CR is viewed as more process oriented and coordinates care across many professionals and services. Phase 1 inpatient CR begins in the hospital and is a shared responsibility between several services. Shortened hospital stays have led to innovative solutions for early ambulation, risk factor education, and discharge planning, including enrollment into phase 2 CR. Phase 2, also known as early outpatient, should begin within 1 to 2 weeks postevent in healthier patients and can last between 6 and 12 weeks postdischarge. Phase 3 (maintenance phase) should begin immediately at the conclusion of phase 2.
[embed:render:related:node:107250]
Phase 1
Prior to the advent of the Healthy Heart Program, secondary prevention education was not done at the bedside for SFVAMC patients following cardiac revascularization. The AACVPR recommends patient assessment, mobilization, risk-factor identification and education, and facilitation into outpatient CR as essential components of phase 1 CR.5 The Healthy Heart Program clinician initiates phase 1 CR by examining cardiac risk factor management for all referred patients. Physical and cardiac risk factor assessments are accomplished by completing a detailed chart review and interview with the patient. During this interview with the patient, the clinician evaluates cognitive function and readiness to learn. Staff will interview the patient further to assess the overall patient needs, including availability of social support, resources to maintain optimal health, and the need for secondary preventive education. For the PCI patient, the interview may occur in the hours following their procedure; for the surgical patient, this bedside visit typically occurs postoperative day 3 or 4.
A standardized cardiac risk factor evaluation tool was designed, which also serves as an education form to help guide the conversation on risk factor management. The interactive, patient-centered form includes opportunities to review risk, discuss current laboratory values (eg, lipids and hemoglobin A1c), and establish individualized goals based on patient preference and recommended guidelines. Healthy Heart Program staff assist the patient in formulating achievable goals using the SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time-related) criteria.19 Immediately after a heart event or procedure, patients often feel highly motivated to initiate lifestyle changes.20 However, PCI patients may have a short window of opportunity for learning between their readiness to learn state and before the activities of discharge. Staff use these opportunities as a teachable moment and to increase enrollment into outpatient CR (phase 2).
The provider performs a thorough chart review and bedside consultation to determine whether home-based CR is indicated, feasible, and appropriate. Not every patient that is referred will be enrolled in CR. Patients have the option to opt out. In addition, clinical staff adhere to the program protocol’s exclusion criteria.
Absolute contraindications for home enrollment include unstable angina, staged cardiac procedure (PCI and surgery), complex ventricular arrhythmias, severe or symptomatic aortic stenosis, decompensated heart failure, and uncontrolled hypertension (Table). Patients deemed high risk for home-based CR may be referred to a non-VA facility-based CR program. Risk stratification, using the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Grading of Angina Pectoris, is a continuous process that is used to identify patients who may move from moderate to high risk, both before and during the program.21,22
Phases 2 and 3
Phase 2 of the Healthy Heart Program CR includes physical activity, risk-factor modification, nutritional guidance, psychosocial modification, a return to previous activities, and an improved QOL. Prior to entry into the program, a submaximal exercise test, the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), is used as both a qualifying test and for developing the initial exercise prescription.22 The minimum 6MWT distance needed to qualify is 75 m for postoperative and 150 m for nonsurgical patients. The 6MWT is performed in-hospital for patients who were admitted for stable angina, PCI, and are > 4 days following acute MI.23 Cardiothoracic surgery patients are tested at their first follow-up clinic visit (typically 2-3 weeks postoperatively). The clinician monitors the heart rate with either a wearable device or via inpatient telemetry monitors. This exercise testing also serves as a motivational tool for patients to gain confidence in their ability to begin to exercise at home.
Each participant receives a workbook and a DVD titled An Active Partnership for the Health of Your Heart. A personal health journal is provided for documenting vital signs, activity, and dietary intake. In addition, each participant receives equipment on an as-needed basis, including resistance bands, a weight scale, a blood pressure cuff, a pedometer/heart rate monitoring device, an exercise peddler or stationary bike, and a dietary video. Baseline assessments include the General Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), Personal Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and a nutrition (Rate Your Plate) questionnaire. A cognitive function test (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) is used on an as-needed basis.
Nine 30-minute telephone follow-up sessions are scheduled within a 12-week period (weekly for the first 6 weeks, then biweekly). Topics covered are customized and include exercise; nutrition; medications; smoking cessation; and diabetes, hypertension, and weight management. Via a telephone follow-up session, the program nurses and patients codevelop an electronic individualized treatment plan that is tailored to the patient’s diagnosis, individual goals, and preferences. Clinicians teach participants how to self-monitor exercise, using a continuous heart rate monitoring device (Mio Alpha II or Fuse) and the 6-20 Borg dyspnea rating scale.24 Initially, moderate intensity exercise is prescribed with a target heart rate that is 60% to 75% of the 6MWT peak heart rate and an initial Borg scale target (11-14 on 20 point scale). The program physicians approve the treatment plan at the first patient visit and every 30 days until phase 2 is complete.
Patients who have completed early outpatient phase 2 CR can benefit from continuing to a phase 3 CR program.25 Participants of the Healthy Heart Program automatically are enrolled in phase 3, which is a long-term maintenance program that includes monthly or bimonthly phone calls for up to 1-year posthospital discharge. The goal is to support each veteran’s transition to a long-term healthy lifestyle that includes regular exercise.
[embed:render:related:node:136410]
Client-Clinician Partnership
The Healthy Heart Program establishes the client-clinician partnership prior to discharge for hospitalized patients. The nurse who initiates phase 1 at the bedside is the primary clinician throughout phases 2 and 3 with the exception of a dietician, psychologist, and/or exercise physiologist who provide follow-up calls as needed. Throughout these weekly follow-up phone sessions, the clinician gains an appreciation of the patient’s understanding of his or her disease, patterns of behavior, desire to change, confidence in being able to change, potential barriers, and responses to obstacles
Tailored Behavioral Change
The clinician’s responsibility is to listen to the patient’s concerns, assess their level of commitment for changing health behaviors, and provide guidance and support at the patient’s current level. The clinician applies the Transtheoretical Model founded on the Stages of Change principals to help understand and provide guidance based on the patient’s feelings about health behavior change.26 People are actively open to changing behaviors by only 20% at any given time.27 Therefore, action-oriented guidance for patients who are in the contemplative stage would not be helpful. This patient-centered approach promotes patients’ self-awareness, participation, and understanding of their decision-making role in their health management. Ultimately, individuals must take ownership of their health care maintenance for sustained behavioral change and medication management, and clinicians should facilitate that process.
Discussion
Secondary prevention strategies for heart disease continue to be underutilized. The Healthy Heart Program aims to improve participation in CR, improve QOL, help patients understand their heart disease, and support these patients psychologically. An advantage of this program is that it begins inpatient CR immediately following the heart event, when many patients often are more receptive to behavioral change support and guidance. Another advantage is that the program breaks down barriers to access, which is especially important in the veteran population. The Healthy Heart Program provides support and guidance for exercise and cardiac risk factor management to patients who otherwise would have not participated in any type of CR program.
A home-based CR program can be adopted independently or in conjunction with a facility-based program to which patients lack access. Furthermore, home-based CR programs function well as a phase 3 maintenance program at the completion of a traditional CR program. Since its inception, the Healthy Heart Program has increased the number of veterans enrolled in cardiac rehabilitation at the SFVAMC dramatically, from < 1% in FY 2012 to > 40% in FY 2015.
Program Limitations
One potential disadvantage of a home-based CR program is patients’ fear of returning to an exercise routine following a cardiac event. In addition, a lack of in-person supervision in home-based CR can lead patients to engage in less intensive activity than in facility-based CR. Other disadvantages include a lack of social support, less patient accountability, and safety concerns for sicker patients. Staff have consulted on several patients who expressed a lack of confidence in their ability to do well in this type of program, where accountability for exercising is self-reported. Staff referred these patients, who had the means to travel, to a non-VA facility-based CR program of their choice. Ideally, patients would have the choice between facility- or home-based programs or be able to choose a hybrid program that would best meet their needs.
Another identified limitation of this program was the lack of group support and in-person interactions with rehabilitation staff. Finally, although this program uses mobile devices with heart rate monitoring technology, these devices currently lack the capability to remotely share data with clinicians. Clinicians are reliant on the patient’s use of a personal health journal and memory. Subjective patient reporting has been found to be overestimated; therefore, more objective methods to measure important clinical outcomes are necessary.28
Conclusion
Facility-based CR is effective but underutilized. Alternative secondary programs are needed to help meet patient needs and overcome patient barriers. One promising approach to increase participation is home-based CR. Home-based CR programs have the potential to increase CR uptake and adherence. Home-based CR optimizes enrollment through evidence-based alternative models due to improved access. The future of CR will become highly individualized and multifaceted as a result of available mobile technologies and Internet-based tools, which will help increase the number of participants and expand the reach of cardiac risk factor management programs beyond the facility-based setting. A home-based program will be a valuable addition to facility-based programs as a stand-alone program or adopted into a hybrid program.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the VA Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.
1. Benjamin EJ, Blaha MJ, Chiuve SE, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2017 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Cicrulation. 2017;135(10):e146-e603.
2. Anderson L, Oldridge N, Thompson DR, Zwisler A, Rees K, Martin N, Taylor RS. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Am Coll Card. 2016;67:1-12.
3. Oldridge NB, Guyatt GH, Fischer ME, Rimm AA. Cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction. Combined experience of randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 1988;260:940-950.
4. Taylor RS, Brown A, Ebrahim S, et al. Exercise-based rehabilitation for patients with coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Med. 2004;116(10):682-692.
5. American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Guidelines for Cardiac Rehabilitation and Secondary Prevention Programs. 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2013.
6. Balady GJ, Williams MA, Ades PA, et al; American Heart Association Exercise, Cardiac Rehabilitation, and Prevention Committee, the Council on Clinical Cardiology; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism; American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Core components of cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention programs: 2007 update: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Exercise, Cardiac Rehabilitation, and Prevention Committee, the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Councils on Cardiovascular Nursing, Epidemiology and Prevention, and Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism; and the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Circulation. 2007;115(10):2675-2682.
7. Thomas R J, King M, Lui K, et al; Writing Committee Members. AACVPR/ACCF/AHA 2010 update: performance measures on cardiac rehabilitation for referral to cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention services: a report of the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures (Writing Committee to Develop Clinical Performance Measures for Cardiac Rehabilitation). Circulation. 2010;122(13):1342-1350.
8. Suaya JA, Shepard DS, Normand SL, Ades PA, Prottas J, Stason WB. Use of cardiac rehabilitation by Medicare beneficiaries after myocardial infarction or coronary bypass surgery. Circulation. 2007;116(15):1653-1662.
9. Balady GJ, Ades PA, Bitner VA, et al; American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. Referral, enrollment, and delivery of cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention programs at clinical centers and beyond: a presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;124(25):2951-2960.
10. Schopfer DW, Takemoto S, Allsup K, et al. Notice of Retraction and Replacement. Schopfer DW, et al. Cardiac rehabilitation use among veterans with ischemic heart disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(10):1687-1689. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1726-1727.
11. Ferguson EE. Cardiac rehabilitation—an effective and comprehensive but underutilized program to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with CVD. US Cardiology. 2006;3(2):14-16.
12. DeBusk RF, Miller NH, Superko HR, et al. A case-management system for coronary risk factor modification after acute myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120(9):721-729.
13. Buckingham SA, Taylor RS, Jolly K, et al. Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation: abridged Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Heart. 2016;3(2):e000463.
14. Taylor RS, Watt A, Dalal HM, et al. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation versus hospital-based rehabilitation: a cost effectiveness analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2007;119(2):196-201.
15. Kotb A, Hsieh S, Wells GA. The effect of telephone support interventions on coronary artery disease (CAD) patient outcomes during cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e96581.
16. Grace SL, McDonald J, Fishman D, Caruso V. Patient preferences for home-based versus hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 2005;25(1):24-29.
17. Wakefield B, Drwal K, Scherubel M, Klobucar T, Johnson S, Kaboli P. Feasibility and effectiveness of remote, telephone-based delivery of cardiac rehabilitation. Telemed J E Health. 2014;20(1):32-38.
18. Smith SC, Benjamin EJ, Bonow RO, et al; World Heart Federation and the Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. AHA/ACCF secondary prevention and risk reduction therapy for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2011 update: a guideline from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology Foundation. Circulation. 2011;124(22):2458-2473.
19. Doran GT. There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Manage Rev. 1981;70(11):35-36.
20. Dullaghan L, Lusk L, Donnelly P, McGeough M, Fitzsimons D. Communicating with people who have experienced heart attack. Emerg Nurse. 2013;21(6):33-36.
21. Campeau L. Letter: grading of angina pectoris. Circulation. 1976;54(3):522-523.
22. Fletcher GF, Balady GJ, Armstrong EA, et al. Exercise standards for testing and training: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2001;104(14):1694-1740.
23. Gibbons RJ, Balady GJ, Bricker JT, et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines. Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Exercise Testing). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40(8):1531-1540.
24. Borg G. Borg’s Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1998.
25. Seki E, Watanabe Y, Sunayama S, et al. Effects of phase III cardiac rehabilitation programs on health-related quality of life in elderly patients with coronary artery disease: Juntendo Cardiac Rehabilitation Program (J-CARP). Circ J. 2003;67(1):73-77.
26. The transtheoretical model. Pro-Change Behavior Systems, Inc. http://www.prochange.com/transtheoretical-model-of-behavior-change. Published 2016. Accessed April 6, 2017.
27. Prochaska JO, Ever KE, Castle PH, et al. Enhancing multiple domains of well-being by decreasing multiple health risk behaviors: a randomized clinical trial. Popul Health Manag. 2012;15(5):276-286.
28. Prince SA, Adamo KB, Hamel ME, Hardt J, Connor Gorber S, Tremblay M. A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5:56.
1. Benjamin EJ, Blaha MJ, Chiuve SE, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2017 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Cicrulation. 2017;135(10):e146-e603.
2. Anderson L, Oldridge N, Thompson DR, Zwisler A, Rees K, Martin N, Taylor RS. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Am Coll Card. 2016;67:1-12.
3. Oldridge NB, Guyatt GH, Fischer ME, Rimm AA. Cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction. Combined experience of randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 1988;260:940-950.
4. Taylor RS, Brown A, Ebrahim S, et al. Exercise-based rehabilitation for patients with coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Med. 2004;116(10):682-692.
5. American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Guidelines for Cardiac Rehabilitation and Secondary Prevention Programs. 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2013.
6. Balady GJ, Williams MA, Ades PA, et al; American Heart Association Exercise, Cardiac Rehabilitation, and Prevention Committee, the Council on Clinical Cardiology; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism; American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Core components of cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention programs: 2007 update: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Exercise, Cardiac Rehabilitation, and Prevention Committee, the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Councils on Cardiovascular Nursing, Epidemiology and Prevention, and Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism; and the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Circulation. 2007;115(10):2675-2682.
7. Thomas R J, King M, Lui K, et al; Writing Committee Members. AACVPR/ACCF/AHA 2010 update: performance measures on cardiac rehabilitation for referral to cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention services: a report of the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures (Writing Committee to Develop Clinical Performance Measures for Cardiac Rehabilitation). Circulation. 2010;122(13):1342-1350.
8. Suaya JA, Shepard DS, Normand SL, Ades PA, Prottas J, Stason WB. Use of cardiac rehabilitation by Medicare beneficiaries after myocardial infarction or coronary bypass surgery. Circulation. 2007;116(15):1653-1662.
9. Balady GJ, Ades PA, Bitner VA, et al; American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. Referral, enrollment, and delivery of cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention programs at clinical centers and beyond: a presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;124(25):2951-2960.
10. Schopfer DW, Takemoto S, Allsup K, et al. Notice of Retraction and Replacement. Schopfer DW, et al. Cardiac rehabilitation use among veterans with ischemic heart disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(10):1687-1689. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1726-1727.
11. Ferguson EE. Cardiac rehabilitation—an effective and comprehensive but underutilized program to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with CVD. US Cardiology. 2006;3(2):14-16.
12. DeBusk RF, Miller NH, Superko HR, et al. A case-management system for coronary risk factor modification after acute myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120(9):721-729.
13. Buckingham SA, Taylor RS, Jolly K, et al. Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation: abridged Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Heart. 2016;3(2):e000463.
14. Taylor RS, Watt A, Dalal HM, et al. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation versus hospital-based rehabilitation: a cost effectiveness analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2007;119(2):196-201.
15. Kotb A, Hsieh S, Wells GA. The effect of telephone support interventions on coronary artery disease (CAD) patient outcomes during cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e96581.
16. Grace SL, McDonald J, Fishman D, Caruso V. Patient preferences for home-based versus hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 2005;25(1):24-29.
17. Wakefield B, Drwal K, Scherubel M, Klobucar T, Johnson S, Kaboli P. Feasibility and effectiveness of remote, telephone-based delivery of cardiac rehabilitation. Telemed J E Health. 2014;20(1):32-38.
18. Smith SC, Benjamin EJ, Bonow RO, et al; World Heart Federation and the Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. AHA/ACCF secondary prevention and risk reduction therapy for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2011 update: a guideline from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology Foundation. Circulation. 2011;124(22):2458-2473.
19. Doran GT. There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Manage Rev. 1981;70(11):35-36.
20. Dullaghan L, Lusk L, Donnelly P, McGeough M, Fitzsimons D. Communicating with people who have experienced heart attack. Emerg Nurse. 2013;21(6):33-36.
21. Campeau L. Letter: grading of angina pectoris. Circulation. 1976;54(3):522-523.
22. Fletcher GF, Balady GJ, Armstrong EA, et al. Exercise standards for testing and training: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2001;104(14):1694-1740.
23. Gibbons RJ, Balady GJ, Bricker JT, et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines. Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Exercise Testing). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40(8):1531-1540.
24. Borg G. Borg’s Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1998.
25. Seki E, Watanabe Y, Sunayama S, et al. Effects of phase III cardiac rehabilitation programs on health-related quality of life in elderly patients with coronary artery disease: Juntendo Cardiac Rehabilitation Program (J-CARP). Circ J. 2003;67(1):73-77.
26. The transtheoretical model. Pro-Change Behavior Systems, Inc. http://www.prochange.com/transtheoretical-model-of-behavior-change. Published 2016. Accessed April 6, 2017.
27. Prochaska JO, Ever KE, Castle PH, et al. Enhancing multiple domains of well-being by decreasing multiple health risk behaviors: a randomized clinical trial. Popul Health Manag. 2012;15(5):276-286.
28. Prince SA, Adamo KB, Hamel ME, Hardt J, Connor Gorber S, Tremblay M. A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5:56.