Supervía, Marta

Abstract Background Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an established model of cardiovascular (CV) prevention that has proven benefits. Availability, characteristics and need of CR programs in Latin-American and Caribbean (LAC) countries remains poorly characterized. This study aims to establish the availability, capacity, density and aspects of CR delivery in LAC. Methods A cross-sectional survey was administered to CR programs in 24 LAC. Local CV organizations and societies identified CR programs. Characteristics of individual CR program were reviewed including: funding sources, core components, healthcare providers, and dose (number of sessions per weeks X total number of weeks) of CR. National CR capacity (median number of patients a program could serve per year X number of programs per country), density (Ischemic Heart Disease [IHD] incidence per year/ national capacity), need (IHD incidence per year- national capacity) and occupancy (median number patients program served per year/national capacity) were computed based on survey responses. Results At least one CR program was identified per LAC country (total 255 programs across 24 countries). Data was collected in 20 of the 24 countries. Responses were received from 139/255 programs (median program response rate=55%; Table 1). Over 50% (n=73) of programs were funded by multiple sources (government, hospital/clinic, private health insurance); Self-payment was reported by 63% programs, in which 24 (33.8%) patients paid over 50% of the cost. Guideline-indicated conditions were accepted in 77% or more programs. Physiotherapists (n=106, 76.3%), cardiologists (n=105, 75.5%) and dietitians (n=79, 56.8%) were the most common healthcare providers on CR teams. Regionally, programs offered 9 (IQR = 8–10) core components (patient education, exercise prescription and initial assessment delivered by nearly all programs). Median CR was 36 (IQR = 24–56) sessions/patient. Twenty-seven (20.9%) programs offered alternative CR models (e.g., home or community-based and hybrid models). Median national capacity was 500 CR spots/country (IQR= 200–2300). Regional density was 1 CR spot per 24 incident IHD patients per year. Greatest need in absolute terms for CR was observed in Brazil, Dominican Republic and Mexico (all with >150,000 spots needed per year to manage incident IHD patients; Table 1). Occupancy ranged from over 100% in Colombia to 15% in Chile (median=60%, IQR = 32%–81%), Table 1. Conclusion In LAC countries, there is very limited capacity to meet the need for CR. Nature of CR services varied regionally. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

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.

Background Prognosis based on body fat percentage ( BF %) in patients with coronary artery disease has not been extensively studied. We tested the hypothesis that patients with coronary artery disease and increased BF % have a higher risk for major adverse cardiovascular events ( MACEs ) and that fat‐free mass is associated with better prognosis. Methods and Results We included 717 patients referred to cardiac rehabilitation after coronary artery disease events or procedures who underwent air displacement plethysmography to assess BF %; 75% were men, with a mean age 61.4±11.4 years and a mean body mass index of 30±5.4 kg/m 2 . Follow‐up was performed using a record linkage system. Patients were classified in sex‐specific quartiles of BF % and fat‐free mass index. The composite outcome of MACEs included acute coronary syndromes, coronary revascularization, stroke, or death from any cause. After a median follow‐up of 3.9 years, 201 patients had a MACE . After adjusting for covariates, body mass index was not associated with MACEs ( P =0.12). However, the risk of MACEs for those in the highest BF % quartile was nearly double when compared with those in the lowest quartile (hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.30–2.77; P =0.0008). In contrast, fat‐free mass was inversely associated with MACEs . The risk of MACEs for those in the fourth fat‐free mass quartile was lower (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.35–0.82; P =0.004), when compared with those in the first quartile. Conclusions In patients with coronary artery disease, there is no obesity paradox when measuring BF % instead of body mass index. BF % is associated with a higher risk of MACEs , whereas fat‐free mass is associated with a lower risk of MACEs . Body mass index was not associated with MACEs .

BackgroundReplacing sitting with standing is one of several recommendations to decrease sedentary time and increase the daily energy expenditure, but the difference in energy expenditure between standing versus sitting has been controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine this difference.Designs and methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar for observational and experimental studies that compared the energy expenditure of standing versus sitting. We calculated mean differences and 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model. We conducted different predefined subgroup analyses based on characteristics of participants and study design.ResultsWe identified 658 studies and included 46 studies with 1184 participants for the final analysis. The mean difference in energy expenditure between sitting and standing was 0.15 kcal/min (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12–0.17). The difference among women was 0.1 kcal/min (95% CI 0.0–0.21), and was 0.19 kcal/min (95% CI 0.05–0.33) in men. Observational studies had a lower difference in energy expenditure (0.11 kcal/min, 95% CI 0.08–0.14) compared to randomised trials (0.2 kcal/min, 95% CI 0.12–0.28). By substituting sitting with standing for 6 hours/day, a 65 kg person will expend an additional 54 kcal/day. Assuming no increase in energy intake, this difference in energy expenditure would be translated into the energy content of about 2.5 kg of body fat mass in 1 year.ConclusionsThe substitution of sitting with standing could be a potential solution for a sedentary lifestyle to prevent weight gain in the long term. Future studies should aim to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of this strategy.