Lima de Melo Ghisi, Gabriela

Abstract Aims To characterize global variation in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) staffing, indications, and prescribed dose by country income classification and compare findings with the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation’s 2016 Global Audit. Methods and results Cross-sectional REDCap survey of Phase II/post-discharge CR programmes (May–September 2025). Outcomes were multidisciplinary team size/composition, accepted cardiac and non-cardiac indications, and centre-based CR dose. Comparisons were made across World Bank country income classifications and Audit decade (2016 vs. 2025). Of 7025 programmes identified globally, 1505 (median programme response rate = 62%/country) initiated a survey, from 90/113 (80%) countries with CR. CR was delivered by a multidisciplinary team of 7 (median; P25–P75 = 5–8; nurses, physiotherapists, cardiologists, and dietitians most common); teams were smaller in low-income countries (median = 4; P < 0.001), and physician specialty varied. Non-low-income programmes consistently accepted (≥90%) patients with acute coronary syndrome, with programmes in low-income countries less often accepting related interventions (e.g. surgery: low-income 0% vs. high-income 97%; P < 0.01), but non-cardiac indications were more frequently accepted (e.g. primary prevention, diabetes, and lung disease). Acceptance of heart failure increased compared with the previous Audit (70% vs. 87%; P < 0.001). Centre-based programmes prescribed a median of 20 h (P25–P75 = 12–30), typically two sessions/week over 8 weeks. Globally, 65 (72%) countries prescribed a median ≥12 sessions/programme. Programmes in upper-middle-income countries prescribed more sessions (median = 24, P25–P75 = 12–36; P < 0.001). Dose did not differ meaningfully between Audits (P = 0.07). Conclusion CR programmes globally are offered by small, but multidisciplinary teams. They accept guideline-indicated patients, with applicable variation by context. Insufficient dose in one-quarter of countries underscores investment need.

Alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) delivery, such as home or community-based programs, have been developed to overcome underutilization. However, their availability and characteristics have never been assessed globally. In this cross-sectional study, a piloted survey was administered online to CR programs globally. CR was available in 111/203 (54.7%) countries globally; data were collected in 93 (83.8% country response rate). 1082 surveys (32.1% program response rate) were initiated. Globally, 85 (76.6%) countries with CR offered supervised programs, and 51 (45.9%; or 25.1% of all countries) offered some alternative model. Thirty-eight (34.2%) countries with CR offered home-based programs, with 106 (63.9%) programs offering some form of electronic CR (eCR). Twenty-five (22.5%) countries with CR offered community-based programs. Where available, programs served a mean of 21.4% ± 22.8% of their patients in home-based programs. The median dose for home-based CR was 3 sessions (Q25−Q75 = 1.0–4.0) and for community-based programs was 20 (Q25–Q75 = 9.6–36.0). Seventy-eight (47.0%) respondents did not perceive they had sufficient capacity to meet demand in their home-based program, for reasons including funding and insufficient staff. Where alternative CR models are offered, capacity is insufficient half the time. Home-based CR dose is insufficient to achieve health benefits. Allocation to program model should be evidence-based.

Objective Cardiovascular disease is a global epidemic, which is largely preventable. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is demonstrated to be cost-effective and efficacious in high-income countries. CR could represent an important approach to mitigate the epidemic of cardiovascular disease in lower-resource settings. The purpose of this consensus statement was to review low-cost approaches to delivering the core components of CR, to propose a testable model of CR which could feasibly be delivered in middle-income countries. Methods A literature review regarding delivery of each core CR component, namely: (1) lifestyle risk factor management (ie, physical activity, diet, tobacco and mental health), (2) medical risk factor management (eg, lipid control, blood pressure control), (3) education for self-management and (4) return to work, in low-resource settings was undertaken. Recommendations were developed based on identified articles, using a modified GRADE approach where evidence in a low-resource setting was available, or consensus where evidence was not. Results Available data on cost of CR delivery in low-resource settings suggests it is not feasible to deliver CR in low-resource settings as is delivered in high-resource ones. Strategies which can be implemented to deliver all of the core CR components in low-resource settings were summarised in practice recommendations, and approaches to patient assessment proffered. It is suggested that CR be adapted by delivery by non-physician healthcare workers, in non-clinical settings. Conclusions Advocacy to achieve political commitment for broad delivery of adapted CR services in low-resource settings is needed.