Staffing, accepted indications, and dose of Phase II cardiac rehabilitation: country income class and time-based comparisons from the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation’s (ICCPR) 2025 Audit Update
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology | May 28, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available
Abstract Aims To characterize global variation in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) staffing, indications, and prescribed dose by country income classification and compare findings with the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation’s 2016 Global Audit. Methods and results Cross-sectional REDCap survey of Phase II/post-discharge CR programmes (May–September 2025). Outcomes were multidisciplinary team size/composition, accepted cardiac and non-cardiac indications, and centre-based CR dose. Comparisons were made across World Bank country income classifications and Audit decade (2016 vs. 2025). Of 7025 programmes identified globally, 1505 (median programme response rate = 62%/country) initiated a survey, from 90/113 (80%) countries with CR. CR was delivered by a multidisciplinary team of 7 (median; P25–P75 = 5–8; nurses, physiotherapists, cardiologists, and dietitians most common); teams were smaller in low-income countries (median = 4; P < 0.001), and physician specialty varied. Non-low-income programmes consistently accepted (≥90%) patients with acute coronary syndrome, with programmes in low-income countries less often accepting related interventions (e.g. surgery: low-income 0% vs. high-income 97%; P < 0.01), but non-cardiac indications were more frequently accepted (e.g. primary prevention, diabetes, and lung disease). Acceptance of heart failure increased compared with the previous Audit (70% vs. 87%; P < 0.001). Centre-based programmes prescribed a median of 20 h (P25–P75 = 12–30), typically two sessions/week over 8 weeks. Globally, 65 (72%) countries prescribed a median ≥12 sessions/programme. Programmes in upper-middle-income countries prescribed more sessions (median = 24, P25–P75 = 12–36; P < 0.001). Dose did not differ meaningfully between Audits (P = 0.07). Conclusion CR programmes globally are offered by small, but multidisciplinary teams. They accept guideline-indicated patients, with applicable variation by context. Insufficient dose in one-quarter of countries underscores investment need.