High and low contact frequency cardiac rehabilitation programmes elicit similar improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness and cardiovascular risk factors.

AIM Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a proven intervention that substantially improves physical health and decreases death and disability following a cardiovascular event. Traditional CR typically involves 36 on-site exercise sessions spanning a 12-week period. To date, the optimal dose of CR has yet to be determined. This study compared a high contact frequency CR programme (HCF, 34 on-site sessions) with a low contact frequency CR programme (LCF, eight on-site sessions) of equal duration (4 months). METHODS A total of 961 low-risk cardiac patients (RARE score <4) self-selected either a HCF (n = 469) or LCF (n = 492) CR programme. Cardiorespiratory fitness and cardiovascular risk factors were measured on admission and discharge. RESULTS Similar proportions of patients completed HCF (n = 346) and LCF (n = 351) (p = 0.398). Patients who were less fit (<8 METs) were more likely to drop out of the LCF group, while younger patients (<60 years) were more likely to drop out of the HCF group. Both groups experienced similar reductions in weight (-2.3 vs. -2.4 kg; p = 0.779) and improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness (+1.5 vs. +1.4 METs; p = 0.418). CONCLUSIONS Patients in the LCF programme achieved equivalent results to those in the HCF programme. Certain subgroups of patients, however, may benefit from participation in a HCF programme, including those patients who are predisposed to prematurely discontinuing the programme and those patients who would benefit from increased monitoring. The LCF model can be employed as an alternative option to widen access and participation for patients who are unable to attend HCF programmes due to distance or time limitations.