Objective:

To analyze the scientific evidence on home-based CR (HBCR) and traditional CR (TRC) in patient safety and its efficacy in improving the maximum oxygen volume (VO2max) and functional capacity in patients with CVD.

Methods:

This systematic review was developed through PRISMA agreements. The scientific articles were searched using the electronic databases: “PubMed”, “ScienceDirect”, “Academic Search Ultimate” and “SportDiscus”. Two search terms or Boolean phrase were used: (“heart disease” OR “cardiac diseases” OR “coronary artery disease” OR “heart failure”) AND (“cardiac rehabilitation” OR “center-based” OR “exercise” OR “training”) AND (“home-based” OR “home training” OR “home exercise”) NOT (“animal”).

Results:

A total of 1516 studies were reviewed where 21 articles were included and 1316 patients with CVD that met inclusion criteria. The prevalence of adverse events was 3.8% in HCR and 4.3% in TCR. VO2max increased from 4.1% to 39.6% with HCR and between 4.0% to 54.1% with TCR. Functional capacity increased between 3.0% to 11.7% with HCR and between 4.9% and 11.8% withTCR.

Conclusions:

This scientific evidence shows that HBCR programs are as safe and effective as TCR programs providing similar improving effects on increasing VO2max and functional capacity and offering a great exercise alternative during the COVID-19 pandemic.