Hybrid Cardiac Rehabilitation Program in a Low-Resource Setting: A Randomized Clinical Trial

While effective, cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR) as traditionally delivered is not well implemented in lower-resource settings. To test the noninferiority of hybrid CR compared with traditional CR in terms of cardiovascular events. This pragmatic, multicenter, parallel arm, open-label randomized clinical trial (the Hybrid Cardiac Rehabilitation Trial [HYCARET]) with blinded outcome assessment was conducted at 6 referral centers in Chile. Adults aged 18 years or older who had a cardiovascular event or procedure, no contraindications to exercise, and access to a mobile telephone were eligible and recruited between April 1, 2019, and March 15, 2020, with follow-up until July 29, 2021. Participants were randomized 1:1 in permuted blocks to the experimental arm, which received 10 center-based supervised exercise sessions plus counseling in 4 to 6 weeks and then were supported at home via telephone calls and text messages through weeks 8 to 12, or the control arm, which received the standard CR of 18 to 22 sessions with exercises and education in 8 to 12 weeks. The primary outcome was cardiovascular events or mortality. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, return to work, and lifestyle behaviors measured with validated questionnaires; muscle strength and functional capacity, measured through physical tests; and program adherence and exercise-related adverse events, assessed using checklists. A total of 191 participants were included (mean [SD] age, 58.74 [9.80] years; 145 [75.92%] male); 93 were assigned to hybrid CR and 98 to standard CR. At 1 year, events had occurred in 5 unique participants in the hybrid CR group (5.38%) and 9 in the standard CR group (9.18%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the hybrid CR group had 3.80% (95% CI, -11.13% to 3.52%) fewer cardiovascular events than the standard CR group, and relative risk was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.20-1.68) for the primary outcome. In the per-protocol analysis at different levels of adherence to the intervention, all 95% CIs crossed the noninferiority boundary (eg, 20% adherence: absolute risk difference, -0.35% [95% CI, -7.56% to 6.85%]; 80% adherence: absolute risk difference, 3.30% [95% CI, -3.70% to 10.31%]). No between-group differences were found for secondary outcomes except adherence to supervised CR sessions (79.14% [736 of 930 supervised sessions] in the hybrid CR group vs 61.46% [1201 of 1954 sessions] in the standard CR group). The results suggest that a hybrid CR program is noninferior to stan