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 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 &lt; 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

Nature of cardiac rehabilitation around the globe

Abstract Background: Cardiac 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. Methods: In 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. Findings: 111/203 (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 &lt; 0.001), dietitians (n = 739, 80.2%), and physiotherapists (n = 733, 79.3%). The most commonly-offered core components (mean = 8.7 ± 1.9 program) were: initial assessment (n = 939, 98.8%; most commonly for hypertension, tobacco, and physical inactivity), risk factor management (n = 928, 98.2%), patient education (n = 895, 96.9%), and exercise (n = 898, 94.3%; lower in Western Pacific, p &lt; 0.01). All regions met ≥ 16/20 quality indicators, but quality was &lt; 75% for tobacco cessation and return-to-work counseling (lower in Americas, p = < 0.05). Interpretation: This first-ever survey of CR around the globe suggests CR quality is high. However, there is significant regional variation, which could impact patient outcomes