Turk-Adawi, Karam

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.