Telerehabilitation vs. centre-based cardiac rehabilitation after acute coronary syndrome: results of the pragmatic TELECOR randomized trial
In brief
Telerehabilitation saw 86% meet recovery goals, similar to centre-based care
In this pragmatic randomized trial of 129 people after acute coronary syndrome, 86% in telerehabilitation and 79.7% in centre-based rehabilitation met at least four of seven risk-factor and lifestyle goals at 8 weeks; the difference was not statistically significant. Functional capacity and other outcomes also improved similarly, but the small trial leaves uncertainty about effects on cardiovascular events.
- Journal
- European heart journal open (Q1)
- Published
- 24 September 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Maria Boldó Alcaine, Maria José Durà Mata, Gabriel-Fernando Sandoval Ruíz, Maria Llaberia Marcual, Marta Carceller de la Torre, Mar Domingo Teixidor, et al.
- PMID
- 42892836
- DOI
- 10.1093/ehjopen/oeag142
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine (top studies of the week, 1 November 2026): Pragmatic RCT telerehabilitation vs centre‑based cardiac rehab after ACS
Abstract
AIMS: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves cardiovascular outcomes after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but access remains suboptimal. Telerehabilitation may overcome barriers, yet evidence from real-world, public health systems is limited. This randomized controlled trial study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured telerehabilitation programme compared with standard centre-based CR in patients after ACS, focussing on cardiovascular risk factor control and lifestyle adherence. METHODS AND RESULTS: TELECOR is a pragmatic, open-label, randomized trial conducted at a tertiary public hospital. Adults with recent ACS were randomized 1:1 to an 8 week structured telerehabilitation or a centre-based CR programme. The primary outcome was achievement of a composite target (≥4 of 7 predefined cardiovascular and lifestyle goals) at 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes included changes in functional capacity, medication adherence, quality of life, psychological status, satisfaction, and cardiovascular events at 6 months. A total of 129 patients were randomized (65 telerehabilitation, 64 centre-based). At 8 weeks, 86% of telerehabilitation vs. 79.7% of centre-based participants met the composite target (P = 0.37). At 6 months, this was 87% vs. 80.4% (P = 0.34). Both groups showed similar improvements in functional capacity (≈+1 metabolic equivalent of tasks), adherence (>84%), and satisfaction (>91/100). No between-group differences were observed in clinical events or psychological outcomes. CONCLUSION: In a real-world public hospital setting, telerehabilitation was non-inferior to conventional CR in achieving cardiovascular risk factor control and improving functional capacity. These results support the broader integration of digital CR models into routine secondary prevention care.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.