Cardiovascular

Smartphone Cardiac Rehabilitation, Assisted Self-Management (SCRAM) Versus Usual Care: Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

TL;DR

SCRAM did not lead to a clinically important difference in VO2max compared to usual cardiac care in this underpowered trial, but was resilient to COVID-19-related disruptions that significantly impacted the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation.

Key Findings

The SCRAM intervention did not produce a statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome of maximal aerobic exercise capacity (VO2max) at 24 weeks compared to usual care.

  • Mean VO2max at 24 weeks was 26.10 (SD 10.72) mL/kg/min in the SCRAM group versus 24.65 (SD 7.87) mL/kg/min in the control group.
  • The mean difference was 1.61 mL/kg/min (95% CI -1.38 to 4.61, P=.28).
  • Analysis was intention-to-treat using linear regression adjusted for baseline and stratification factors on multiple imputed data.
  • The trial was underpowered, with only 123 of the required 220 participants (56%) recruited and randomized.

Patients receiving SCRAM had significantly lower diastolic blood pressure at 24 weeks compared to control.

  • Mean difference in diastolic blood pressure was -5.54 mm Hg (95% CI -10.01 to -1.06) favoring the SCRAM intervention.
  • This was identified among secondary outcomes.
  • No other secondary outcomes were reported as statistically significant in the abstract.

Recruitment and data collection were severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in significant missing data for the primary outcome.

  • Only 123 of the 220 required participants (56%) were recruited and randomized (intervention n=63, control n=60).
  • 45% (55/123) of participants had missing VO2max data at 24 weeks, largely due to enforced COVID-19 restrictions.
  • Recruitment and data collection took place from 2018 to 2021 at 3 hospitals in Victoria, Australia (Melbourne, Geelong, and Bendigo).
  • Usual cardiovascular care, which included referral to center-based cardiac rehabilitation, was heavily impacted during COVID-19, whereas SCRAM delivery was sustained throughout.

SCRAM demonstrated resilience to COVID-19-related disruptions by sustaining delivery of remote cardiac rehabilitation throughout the pandemic.

  • SCRAM provided 24 weeks of remote exercise supervision, coaching, and behavior change support via smartphone.
  • Center-based cardiac rehabilitation and supervised exercise training were significantly disrupted by COVID-19.
  • The program was designed as a dual-phase telerehabilitation program to address accessibility barriers to center-based cardiac rehabilitation.

Adverse events were reported more frequently in the intervention group than the control group, but all were deemed mild or moderate in severity.

  • Adverse events were reported in 16 intervention participants and 6 control participants.
  • Only one adverse event was deemed possibly related to treatment.
  • There were no deaths or hospitalizations reported.
  • Participants were clinically stable adults aged ≥18 years with diagnosed coronary heart disease.

The trial used a multicenter, parallel 2-arm randomized controlled trial design with stratified randomization but was not blinded to participants due to the nature of the treatments.

  • Randomization was 1:1, stratified by sex and study site.
  • Primary outcome assessors and biostatisticians were blinded to allocation.
  • Participants were not blinded to allocation due to the nature of the treatments.
  • Three hospital sites in Victoria, Australia were included: Melbourne, Geelong, and Bendigo.

Have a question about this study?

Citation

Maddison R, Subedi N, Li P, Lamb K, Ball K, Oldenburg B, et al.. (2026). Smartphone Cardiac Rehabilitation, Assisted Self-Management (SCRAM) Versus Usual Care: Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. https://doi.org/10.2196/66074