Ghisi, Gabriela Lima de Melo

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.