Promoting patient utilization of outpatient cardiac rehabilitation: A joint International Council and Canadian Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation position statement

Background: Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) is a recommendation in international clinical practice guidelines given its’ benefits, however use is suboptimal. The purpose of this position statement was to translate evidence on interventions that increase CR enrolment and adherence into implementable recommendations. Methods: The writing panel was constituted by representatives of societies internationally concerned with preventive cardiology, and included disciplines that would be implementing the recommendations. Patient partners served, as well as policy-makers. The statement was developed in accordance with AGREE II, among other guideline checklists. Recommendations were based on our update of the Cochrane review on interventions to promote patient utilization of CR. These were circulated to panel members, who were asked to rate each on a 7-point Likert scale in terms of scientific acceptability, actionability, and feasibility of assessment. A web call was convened to achieve consensus and confirm strength of the recommendations (based on GRADE). The draft underwent external review and public comment. Results: The 3 drafted recommendations were that to increase enrolment, healthcare providers, particularly nurses (strong), should promote CR to patients face-to-face (strong), and that to increase adherence part of CR could be delivered remotely (weak). Ratings for the 3 recommendations were 5.95±0.69 (mean ± standard deviation), 5.33±1.12 and 5.64±1.08, respectively. Conclusions: Interventions can significantly increase utilization of CR, and hence should be widely applied. We call upon cardiac care institutions to implement these strategies to augment CR utilization, and to ensure CR programs are adequately resourced to serve enrolling patients and support them to complete programs

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 availability and density around the globe

Abstract Background: Despite 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. Methods: A 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. Findings: CR 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 < 0.001). There were 5753 programs globally that could serve 1,655,083 patients/year, despite an estimated 20,279,651 incident IHD cases globally/year. Volume was significantly greater where patients were systematically referred (odds ratio [OR] = 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.35–1.38) and programs offered alternative models (OR = 1.05, 95%CI = 1.04–1.06), and significantly lower with private (OR = 0.92, 95%CI = 0.91–0.93) or public (OR = 0.83, 95%CI = 0.82–0.84) funding compared to hybrid sources. Median capacity (i.e., number of patients a program could serve annually) was 246/program (Q25–Q75 = 150–390). The absolute density was one CR spot per 11 IHD cases in countries with CR, and 12 globally. Interpretation: CR is available in only half of countries globally. Where offered, capacity is grossly insufficient, such that most patients will not derive the benefits associated with participation