ABSTRACT
Abstract Introduction: In Mexico, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) as an interdisciplinary intervention with therapeutic impact in patients with heart disease is growing. There is the need to know actual conditions of CR in our country. Objectives: The objective of this National Registry is to follow-up those existing and new CR units in Mexico through the comparison between the two previous registries, RENAPREC-2009 and RENAPREC II-2015 studies. This is a descriptive study focused on diverse CR activities such as assistance training, and certification of health professionals, barriers, reference, population attended, interdisciplinarity, permanence over time, growth prospects, regulations, post-pandemic condition, integrative characteristics, and scientific research. Results: Data were collected from 45 CR centers in the 32 states, 75.5% are private practice units, 67% are new, 33% were part of RENAPREC II-2015, and 17 have continued since 2009. With a better distribution of CR units along the territory, the median reference of candidates for CR programs is 9% with a significant reduction into tiempo of enrollment to Phase II admission (19 ± 11 days). Regarding to previous registries, the coverance of Phases I, II, and III is 71%, 100%, and 93%, respectively; and a coverance increases in evaluation, risk stratification, and prescription, more comprehensive attendance and prevention strategies. Conclusions: CR in Mexico has grown in the past 7 years. Even there is still low reference and heterogeneity in specific processes, there are strengths such as interdisciplinarity, scientific professionalization of specialists, national diversification, and an official society that are consolidated over time.
resumen está disponible en el texto completo
ABSTRACT
Abstract: Objective: The aim of this paper is to compare the state of Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs (CRP) in 2009 with 2015. Focus is directed on health care, training of health-providers, research, and the barriers to their implementation. Methods: All authors of RENAPREC-2009, and other cardiac rehabilitation leaders in Mexico were requested to participate. These centres were distributed into two groups: RENAPREC-2009 centres that participated in 2015, and the new CRP units. Results: In 2009 there were 14 centres, two of which disappeared and another two did not respond. CRP-units increased by 71% (n = 24), and their geographic distribution shows a centripetal pattern. The coverage of CRP-units was 0.02 centres per 100,000 inhabitants. Only 4.4% of eligible patients were referred to CRP, with a rate of 10.4 patients/100,000 inhabitants in 2015. The ratio of Clinical Cardiologists to Cardiac Rehabilitation Specialists was 94:1, and the ratio of Intervention Specialists to cardiac rehabilitation experts was 16:1. Cardiac rehabilitation activities and costs varied widely. Patient dropout rate in phase II was 12%. Several barriers were identified: financial crisis (83%), lack of skilled personnel (67%), deficient equipment (46%), inadequate areas (42%), and a reduced number of operating centres (38%). Conclusions: CRPs in Mexico are still in the process of maturing. Mexican CRP-centres have several strengths, like the quality of the education of the professionals and the multidisciplinary programs. However, the lack of referral of patients and the heterogeneity of procedures are still their main weaknesses.
Resumen: Objetivo: El propósito de este trabajo es comparar el estado actual de los programas de rehabilitación cardiaca (PRC) en México con el RENAPREC-2009, dirigido a la asistencia, docencia, investigación y barreras. Métodos: Se convocó a participar a todos los autores de RENAPREC-2009 y a otros líderes en rehabilitación cardiaca de México. Los centros fueron distribuidos en 2 grupos: los que participaron en el 2015 y las nuevas unidades de PRC. Resultados: En 2009 había 14 centros operativos, de los cuales 2 cerraron y 2 no respondieron. En 2015 se registraron 24 centros en total, representando un aumento neto del 71%. La distribución geográfica fue centrípeta. La cobertura fue de 0.02 centros/100,000 habitantes y de solamente un 4.4% de los pacientes elegibles (10.4 pacientes/100,000 habitantes). La relación cardiólogo clínico-rehabilitador cardiaco es de 94:1 y la de intervencionista-rehabilitador cardiaco es de 16:1. Las actividades realizadas y los costos de los PRC varían de forma importante de centro a centro. En promedio, el 12% de los pacientes en fase ii abandonaron el programa. Las principales barreras para el desarrollo de PRC fueron: económicas (83%), falta de personal capacitado (67%), falta de equipo (46%), áreas inadecuadas (42%) y un insuficiente número de centros operativos (38%). Conclusiones: Los PRC en nuestro país continúan en crecimiento. Se observan fortalezas como el nivel de docencia y el enfoque multidisciplinario, así como deficiencias en la homogeneidad de las actividades y la falta de referencia de la población elegible.