The impact of ICCPR's Global Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation: where are we now and where do we need to go?

Despite the global epidemic of cardiovascular disease and the well-established mitigating benefits of cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR), availability is known to be grossly insufficient, and little was known about the nature of services delivered in resource-poor settings where it is needed most. Indeed, this had not been quantified before the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation's (ICCPR) 2017 Global Audit, published in volume 13 of eClinicalMedicine.1,2 This commentary will: (1) summarize the key findings of the Global Audit, (2) actions taken to address identified issues, (3) what is known about current CR availability and the nature of delivered services globally, and finally (4) consider open questions and future directions to achieve change. There were two main parts to the Audit. First, ICCPR's many members Associations (i.e., 43) and friends (https://globalcardiacrehab.com/Members) confirmed any program availability in every country globally (including number of programs in the country, where applicable). Second, they facilitated administration of an online survey to identified CR programs. This assessed program capacity and quality of services.There was no funding for this commentary. We have not been paid to write this article by a pharmaceutical company or other agency.Scopu

Cardiac rehabilitation availability and characteristics in Latin America and the Caribbean: A global comparison

Background: This study aimed to establish availability and characteristics of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), where cardiovascular disease is highly prevalent. Methods: In this cross-sectional sub-analysis focusing on the 35 LAC countries, local cardiovascular societies identified CR programs globally. An online survey was administered to identified programs, assessing capacity and characteristics. CR need was computed relative to ischemic heart disease (IHD) incidence from the Global Burden of Disease study. Results: ≥1 CR program was identified in 24 LAC countries (68.5% availability; median = 3 programs/country). Data were collected in 20/24 countries (83.3%); 139/255 programs responded (54.5%), and compared to responses from 1082 programs in 111 countries. LAC density was 1 CR spot per 24 IHD patients/year (vs 18 globally). Greatest need was observed in Brazil, Dominican Republic and Mexico (all with >150,000 spots needed/year). In 62.8% (vs 37.2% globally P < .001) of CR programs, patients pay out-of-pocket for some or all of CR. CR teams were comprised of a mean of 5.0 ± 2.3 staff (vs 6.0 ± 2.8 globally; P < .001); Social workers, dietitians, kinesiologists, and nurses were significantly less common on CR teams than globally. Median number of core components offered was 8 (vs 9 globally; P < .001). Median dose of CR was 36 sessions (vs 24 globally; P < .001). Only 27 (20.9%) programs offered alternative CR models (vs 31.1% globally; P < .01). Conclusion: In LAC countries, there is very limited CR capacity in relation to need. CR dose is high, but comprehensiveness low, which could be rectified with a more multidisciplinary team.This work was supported by a research grant from York University’s Faculty of Health, Toronto, Canada, and by project number LQ1605 from the National Program of Sustainability II (MEYS CR), Czech Republic

Nature of Cardiac Rehabilitation Around the Globe

BackgroundCardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a clinically-effective but complex model of care. The purpose of this study was to characterize the nature of CR programs around the world, in relation to guideline recommendations, and compare this by World Health Organization (WHO) region.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, a piloted survey was administered online to CR programs globally. Cardiac associations and local champions facilitated program identification. Quality (benchmark of ≥ 75% of programs in a given country meeting each of 20 indicators) was ranked. Results were compared by WHO region using generalized linear mixed models.Findings111/203 (54.7%) countries in the world offer CR; data were collected in 93 (83.8%; N = 1082 surveys, 32.1% program response rate). The most commonly-accepted indications were: myocardial infarction (n = 832, 97.4%), percutaneous coronary intervention (n = 820, 96.1%; 0.10), and coronary artery bypass surgery (n = 817, 95.8%). Most programs were led by physicians (n = 680; 69.1%). The most common CR providers (mean = 5.9 ± 2.8/program) were: nurses (n = 816, 88.1%; low in Africa, p

Cardiac Rehabilitation Availability and Density around the Globe

BackgroundDespite the epidemic of cardiovascular disease and the benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), availability is known to be insufficient, although this is not quantified. This study ascertained CR availability, volumes and its drivers, and density.MethodsA survey was administered to CR programs globally. Cardiac associations and local champions facilitated program identification. Factors associated with volumes were assessed using generalized linear mixed models, and compared by World Health Organization region. Density (i.e. annual ischemic heart disease [IHD] incidence estimate from Global Burden of Disease study divided by national CR capacity) was computed.FindingsCR was available in 111/203 (54.7%) countries; data were collected in 93 (83.8% country response; N?=?1082 surveys, 32.1% program response rate). Availability by region ranged from 80.7% of countries in Europe, to 17.0% in Africa (p

Cardiac rehabilitation delivery in low/middle-income countries

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

Cardiac rehabilitation delivery in low/middle-income countries

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.Funding this project was supported by a research grant from York University's Faculty of health. Funding was used to translate the survey into spanish and chinese characters.Scopu

Characteristics of cardiac rehabilitation programs in Latin America and the Caribbean, and estimation of capacity and needs in the region

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