Grace, Sherry L

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.

Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is scantly available in Iran, although it is the cost-benefit strategy in cardiac patients, It has not been established how CR is delivered within Iran. This study aimed to determine: (a) availability, density and unmet need for CR, and (b) nature of CR services in Iran by province. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional sub-study of the global CR audit, program availability was determined through cardiovascular networks. An online survey was then disseminated to these programs in June 2016–2017 which assessed capacity and characteristics; a paper-based survey was disseminated in 2018 to nonresponding and any new programs. CR density and need was computed based on annual incidence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in each province. Results: Of the 31 provinces, 12 (38.7%) had CR services. There were 30 programs nationally, all in capital cities; of these, programs in 9 (75.0%) provinces, specifically 22 (73.3%) programs, participated. The national CR density is 1 spot per 7 incident AMI patients/year. Unmet need is greatest in Khuzestan, Tehran and west Azerbaijan, with 44,816 more spots needed/year. Most programs assessed cardiovascular risk factors, and offered comprehensive services, delivered by a multi-disciplinary team, comprised chiefly of nurses, dietitians and cardiologists. Median dose is 14 sessions/program in supervised programs. A third of programs offered home-based services. Conclusion: Where programs do exist in IRAN, they are generally delivered in accordance with guidelines. Therefore, we must increase capacity in CR services in all provinces to improve secondary prevention services.

Background There is wide variability in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) dose (ie, number of sessions) delivered, and no evidence‐based recommendations regarding what dose to prescribe. We aimed to test what CR dose impacts major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). Methods and Results This is an historical cohort study of all patients who had coronary artery disease and who initiated supervised CR between 2002 and 2012 from a single major CR center. CR dose was defined as number of visits including exercise and patient education. Follow‐up was performed using record linkage from the Rochester Epidemiology Project. MACEs included acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina, ventricular arrhythmias, stroke, revascularization, or all‐cause mortality. Dose was analyzed in several ways, including tertiles, categories, and as a continuous variable. Cox models were adjusted for factors associated with dose and MACE. The cohort consisted of 2345 patients, who attended a mean of 12.5±11.1 of 36 prescribed sessions. After a mean follow‐up of 6 years, 695 (29.65%) patients had a MACE, including 231 who died. CR dose was inversely associated with MACE (hazard ratio, 0.66 [95% CI]; 0.55–0.91) in those completing ≥20 sessions, when compared with those not exposed to formal exercise sessions (≤1 session; log‐rank P =0.007). We did not find evidence of nonlinearity ( P ≥0.050), suggesting no minimal threshold nor ceiling. Each additional session was associated with a lower rate of MACE (fully adjusted hazard ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.97–0.99]). Greater session frequency was also associated with lower MACE risk (fully adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.58–0.94]). Conclusions CR reduces MACEs, but the benefit appears to be linear, with greater risk reduction with higher doses, and no upper threshold.

Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recommended in clinical practice guidelines, but dose prescribed varies highly by country. This study characterized the dose offered in supervised CR programs and alternative models worldwide and their potential correlates. Methods and Results: In this cross-sectional study, an online survey was administered to CR programs globally. Cardiac associations and local champions facilitated program identification. Countries were classified based on region and income categories. Dose was operationalized as program duration×sessions per week. Generalized linear mixed models were performed to assess correlates. Of 203 countries in the world, 111 (54.7%) offered CR; data were collected in 93 (83.8% country response rate; n=1082 surveys, 32.1% program response rate). Globally, supervised CR programs were a median of 24 sessions (n=619, 57.3% programs ≥12 sessions); home-based and community-based programs offered 6 and 20 sessions, respectively. There was significant variation in supervised CR dose by region ( P ≤0.001), with the Americas (median, 36 sessions) offering a significantly greater dose than several other regions; there was also a trend for variation by country income classification. There was no difference in home-based dose by region ( P =0.43) but there was for community-based programs ( P <0.05; Americas offering greater dose). There was a significant dose variation in both home- and community-based programs by income classification ( P =0.002 and P <0.001, respectively), with higher doses offered by upper-middle-income than high-income countries. Correlates of supervised CR dose included more involvement of physicians ( P =0.026), proximity to other programs ( P =0.002), and accepting patients with noncardiac indications ( P =0.037). Conclusions: CR programs in many countries may need to increase their dose, which could be supported through physician champions.

Objective Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) availability, programme characteristics and barriers are not well-known in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, they were compared with high-income countries (HICs) and by CR funding source. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was administered to CR programmes globally. Need for CR was computed using incident ischaemic heart disease (IHD) estimates from the Global Burden of Disease study. General linear mixed models were performed. Results CR was identified in 55/138 (39.9%) LMICs; 47/55 (85.5% country response rate) countries participated and 335 (53.5% programme response) surveys were initiated. There was one CR spot for every 66 IHD patients in LMICs (vs 3.4 in HICs). CR was most often paid by patients in LMICs (n=212, 65.0%) versus government in HICs (n=444, 60.2%; p<0.001). Over 85% of programmes accepted guideline-indicated patients. Cardiologists (n=266, 89.3%), nurses (n=234, 79.6%; vs 544, 91.7% in HICs, p=0.001) and physiotherapists (n=233, 78.7%) were the most common providers on CR teams (mean=5.8±2.8/programme). Programmes offered 7.3±1.8/10 core components (vs 7.9±1.7 in HICs, p<0.01) over 33.7±30.7 sessions (significantly greater in publicly funded programmes; p<0.001). Publicly funded programmes were more likely to have social workers and psychologists on staff, and to offer tobacco cessation and psychosocial counselling. Conclusion CR is only available in 40% of LMICs, but where offered is fairly consistent with guidelines. Governments should enact policies to reimburse CR so patients do not pay out-of-pocket.

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.