Babu, Abraham Samuel

Purpose: Literature on early mobilization and exercise training in patients recovering from acute heart failure (AHF) is promising. However, there lacks uniformity in the time of initiation, exercise prescription, safety criteria, and termination criteria. Thus, the aim was to develop a mobilization algorithm for patients recovering from AHF. Methods: A modified web-based Delphi process was undertaken involving 15 panelists from across the globe. In Round 1, new variables, modifications to suggested variables, and agreement-disagreement within the panelists were obtained. In Round 2, agreement on a 5-point Likert scale was obtained. In Round 3, the algorithm was compiled, and excluded statements were discussed via web-based calls. The new variables were grouped into themes via an inductive process. The level of agreement and rating for each statement were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including frequency and percentages. We used Kappa statistics to examine the level of agreement between the panelists for each criterion. The consensus criterion was defined a priori as statements with a mean rating of ≥4 on the 5-point Likert scale by ≥70% of the panelists and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance ( W ) of ≥0.3 between panelists. Results: From Round 1, 54 new variables were obtained. More than two-thirds (118/170, 69%) of statements reached consensus and reported a fair level of agreement between panelists ( W ≥ 0.3). The final algorithm with all its criteria received a 100% (13/13) consensus. Conclusion: Physician-referral criteria, physiotherapy assessment process, exercise prescription, safety criteria, and termination criteria were formulated for early mobilization and exercise training for patients recovering from AHF.

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.