ReviewReviews in cardiovascular medicine2025
Traditional and Virtual Cardiac Rehabilitation: Understanding the Changing Landscape of Cardiac Rehabilitation and the Implications on Patient Outcomes.
Review in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has been categorized as a class Ia recommendation for secondary prevention after major cardiac interventions or in patients with certain cardiac comorbidities. The benefits of CR have been established and range from reducing readmissions to improving quality of life. Given the increasing amount of literature on CR over the past few years and the evolution of this field, there is a need to synthesize these data. Thus, this review aims to combine the latest research findings to provide a comprehensive review of CR literature. We discuss the components needed to create a successful CR program, including individualized training plans, routine clinical assessments, exercise supervision, and nutritional assessments. Overall rates of CR utilization remain low. Therefore, we explore potential reasons for this underutilization observed in the literature, including CR deserts, under-referral, and the lack of education on benefits, time, and transportation. Moreover, we discuss solutions for underutilization that have been analyzed in the literature, including motivational interviewing, gender-specific regimens, transportation assistance, and automatic referrals. Realizing the underutilization of CR, we also assess virtual CR (VCR) and variations in various regimens within the programs. We compare exercise and body metrics, patient outcomes, feasibility, and patient preferences between VCR and traditional CR published in the literature. VCR does not appear to be inferior to conventional CR in many metrics, although more research is needed to compare the two modalities. We recommend that providers explain the outcomes of the two modalities and allow patients to choose the regimen that works best for them. We discuss how VCR may be better suited to patient populations with specific barriers to care. We also discuss the ongoing current CR trials, many of which are focused on solutions to underutilization. Lastly, we further discuss the remaining gaps in the CR literature and areas where future research could be beneficial, such as establishing large-scale VCR studies and studies focused on expanding CR indications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.