Pesah, Ella

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.