Cardiac rehabilitation availability and delivery in Brazil: a comparison to other upper middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Brazil has insufficient cardiac rehabilitation capacity, yet density and regional variation in unmet need is unknown. Moreover, South America has CR guidelines, but whether delivery conforms has not been described. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to establish: (1) cardiac rehabilitation volumes and density, and (2) the nature of programmes, and (3) compare these by: (a) Brazilian region and (b) to other upper middle-income countries (upper-MICs). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a survey was administered to cardiac rehabilitation programmes globally. Cardiac associations were engaged to facilitate programme identification. Density was computed using Global Burden of Disease study ischaemic heart disease incidence estimates. Results were compared to data from the 29 upper-MICs with cardiac rehabilitation (N=249 programmes). RESULTS: Cardiac rehabilitation was available in all Brazilian regions, with 30/75 programmes initiating a survey (40.0% programme response rate). There was only one cardiac rehabilitation spot for every 99 ischaemic heart disease patient. Most programmes were funded by government/hospital sources (n=16, 53.3%), but in 11 programmes (36.7%) patients depended on private health insurance. Guideline-indicated conditions were accepted in ≥70% of programmes. Programmes had a team of 3.8±1.9 staff (versus 5.9±2.8 in other upper-MICs, p<0.05), offering 4.0±1.6/10 core components (versus 6.0±1.5 in other upper-MICs, p<0.01; more tobacco cessation and return-to-work counselling needed in particular) over 44.5 sessions/patient (Q25-75=29-65) vs. 32 sessions/patient (Q25-75=15-40) in other upper-MICs (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Brazilian cardiac rehabilitation capacity must be augmented, but where available, services are consistent across regions, but differ from other upper-MICs in terms of staff size and core components delivered.

Nature of Cardiac Rehabilitation Around the Globe.

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 ±â€¯2.8/program) were: nurses (n = 816, 88.1%; low in Africa, p < 0.001), dietitians (n = 739, 80.2%), and physiotherapists (n = 733, 79.3%). The most commonly-offered core components (mean = 8.7 ±â€¯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 < 0.01). All regions met ≥ 16/20 quality indicators, but quality was < 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.

Cardiac Rehabilitation Availability and Density around the Globe.

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 < .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 = .92, 95%CI = .91-.93) or public (OR = .83, 95%CI = .82-84) 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.

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.

Availability and delivery of cardiac rehabilitation in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: How does it compare globally?

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to (1) confirm cardiac rehabilitation (CR) availability, (2) establish CR density and unmet need, as well as (3) the nature of programs in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), and (4) compare these (a) by EMR country and (b) to other countries. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a survey was administered to CR programs globally. Cardiac associations and local champions facilitated program identification. CR need was based on Global Burden of Disease study ischemic heart disease (IHD) estimates. RESULTS: Of the 22 EMR countries, CR programs were identified in 12 (54.5%). Nine (75.0% country response rate) countries participated, and 24/49 (49.0% program response rate) surveys were initiated. There was 1 CR spot for every 104 incident IHD patients/year (versus 12 globally). One-third of responding programs were privately funded (n = 8; versus globally p < .001), and in 18 (75.0%) programs patients paid some or all of the cost out-of-pocket (versus n = 378, 36.3% globally; p < .001). Over 80% of programs accepted guideline-indicated patients. Nurses (n = 20, 95.2%), cardiologists (n = 18, 85.7%) and dietitians (n = 18, 85.7%) were the most common healthcare providers on CR teams (mean = 6.4 ±â€¯2.2/program; 5.9 ±â€¯2.8 globally, p = .18). On average, programs offered 8.9 ±â€¯1.7/11 core components (versus 8.7 ±â€¯1.9 globally, p = .90). These were most commonly initial assessment, management of risk factors, and patient education (n = 21, 100.0% for each), and least commonly return-to-work counselling (n = 15 71.4%). Mean dose was 27.0 ±â€¯13.5 sessions (versus 28.7 ±â€¯27.6 globally, p = .38). Seven (33.3%) programs offered some alternative models. CONCLUSION: CR is insufficiently implemented, with 2,079,283 more spots needed/year across the EMR. But where offered, CR is consistent with guidelines.

Cardiac rehabilitation availability and delivery in Europe: How does it differ by region and compare with other high-income countries?: Endorsed by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to establish cardiac rehabilitation availability and density, as well as the nature of programmes, and to compare these by European region (geoscheme) and with other high-income countries. METHODS: A survey was administered to cardiac rehabilitation programmes globally. Cardiac associations were engaged to facilitate programme identification. Density was computed using global burden of disease study ischaemic heart disease incidence estimates. Four high-income countries were selected for comparison (N = 790 programmes) to European data, and multilevel analyses were performed. RESULTS: Cardiac rehabilitation was available in 40/44 (90.9%) European countries. Data were collected in 37 (94.8% country response rate). A total of 455/1538 (29.6% response rate) programme respondents initiated the survey. Programme volumes (median 300) were greatest in western European countries, but overall were higher than in other high-income countries (P < 0.001). Across all Europe, there was on average only 1 CR spot per 7 IHD patients, with an unmet regional need of 3,449,460 spots annually. Most programmes were funded by social security (n = 25, 59.5%; with significant regional variation, P < 0.001), but in 72 (16.0%) patients paid some or all of the programme costs (or ∼18.5% of the ∼€150.0/programme) out of pocket. Guideline-indicated conditions were accepted in 70% or more of programmes (lower for stable coronary disease), with no regional variation. Programmes had a multidisciplinary team of 6.5 ± 3.0 staff (number and type varied regionally; and European programmes had more staff than other high-income countries), offering 8.5 ± 1.5/10 core components (consistent with other high-income countries) over 24.8 ± 26.0 hours (regional differences, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: European cardiac rehabilitation capacity must be augmented. Where available, services were consistent with guidelines, but varied regionally.

Funding sources and costs to deliver cardiac rehabilitation around the globe: Drivers and barriers.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) reach is minimal globally, primarily due to financial factors. This study characterized CR funding sources, cost to patients to participate, cost to programs to serve patients, and the drivers of these costs. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, an online survey was administered to CR programs globally. Cardiac associations and local champions facilitated program identification. Costs in each country were reported using purchasing power parity (PPP). Results were compared by World Bank country income classification using generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: 111/203 (54.68%) countries in the world offer CR, of which data were collected in 93 (83.78% country response rate; N = 1082 surveys, 32.0% program response rate). CR was most-often publicly funded (more in high-income countries [HICs]; p < .001), but in 60.20% of countries patients paid some or all of the cost. Funding source impacted capacity (p = .004), number of patients per exercise session (p < .001), personnel (p = .037), and functional capacity testing (p = .039). The median cost to serve 1 patient was $945.91PPP globally. In low and middle-income countries (LMICs), exercise equipment and stress testing were perceived as the most expensive delivery elements, with front-line personnel costs perceived as costlier in HICs (p = .003). Modifiable factors associated with higher costs included CR team composition (p = .001), stress testing (p = .002) and telemetry monitoring in HICs (p = .01), and not offering alternative models in LMICs (p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Too many patients are paying out-of-pocket for CR, and more public funding is needed. Lower-cost delivery approaches are imperative, and include walk tests, task-shifting, and intensity monitoring via perceived exertion.

Cardiac Rehabilitation Availability and Delivery in Canada: How Does It Compare With Other High-Income Countries?

BACKGROUND: Canada has insufficient cardiac rehabilitation (CR) capacity, yet unmet need is unknown. Moreover, Canada has CR guidelines, but whether delivery conforms has not been characterized by province/territory. This study aimed to establish (1) CR volumes, capacity, and density, as well as (2) the nature of programs, and (3) compare these (a) by province/territory and (b) with other high-income countries (HICs). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, an online survey was administered to CR programs globally. National cardiac associations were engaged to facilitate program identification where available, or local champions. Density was computed using Canada's Chronic Disease Surveillance System ischemic heart disease incidence estimates. Twenty-eight HICs with CR were selected for comparison (N = 619 programs), and multilevel analyses performed. RESULTS: CR was available in 10 of 13 (76.9%) provinces (no programs in Canada's North), with 74 of 182 programs initiating a survey (40.7% response). Program volumes (median = 250) were greatest in Ontario, but ultimately there was only 1 CR spot per 4.55 patients with ischemic heart disease nationally (similar in other HICs), and 186,187 more spots are needed annually. Most programs were funded by government/hospital sources (n = 48, 66.7%), but in 23 (31.5%), patients paid some or all of program costs out-of-pocket. Guideline-indicated conditions were accepted in more than 90% of programs. Programs had a multidisciplinary team of 6.2 ± 2.1 staff, offering 7.7 ± 1.5/10 core components (varied by province, P = 0.001; return-to-work offered less frequently than other HICs; P = 0.03), over 42.0 ± 26.0 hours (provincial and other HIC differences, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Canadian CR capacity must be augmented, but where available, services are consistent with other HICs.

Cardiac Rehabilitation Models around the Globe.

Alternative models of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) delivery, such as home or community-based programs, have been developed to overcome underutilization. However, their availability and characteristics have never been assessed globally. In this cross-sectional study, a piloted survey was administered online to CR programs globally. CR was available in 111/203 (54.7%) countries globally; data were collected in 93 (83.8% country response rate). 1082 surveys (32.1% program response rate) were initiated. Globally, 85 (76.6%) countries with CR offered supervised programs, and 51 (45.9%; or 25.1% of all countries) offered some alternative model. Thirty-eight (34.2%) countries with CR offered home-based programs, with 106 (63.9%) programs offering some form of electronic CR (eCR). Twenty-five (22.5%) countries with CR offered community-based programs. Where available, programs served a mean of 21.4% ± 22.8% of their patients in home-based programs. The median dose for home-based CR was 3 sessions (Q25-Q75 = 1.0⁻4.0) and for community-based programs was 20 (Q25⁻Q75 = 9.6⁻36.0). Seventy-eight (47.0%) respondents did not perceive they had sufficient capacity to meet demand in their home-based program, for reasons including funding and insufficient staff. Where alternative CR models are offered, capacity is insufficient half the time. Home-based CR dose is insufficient to achieve health benefits. Allocation to program model should be evidence-based.

A Review of Cardiac Rehabilitation Delivery Around the World.

Herein, 28 publications describing cardiac rehabilitation (CR) delivery in 50 of the 113 countries globally suspected to deliver it are reviewed, to characterize the nature of services. Government funding was the main source of CR reimbursement in most countries (73%), with private and patient funding in about » of cases. Myocardial infarction patients and those having revascularization were commonly served. The main professions delivering CR were physicians, nurses, and physiotherapists. Programs offered a median of 20 sessions, although this varied. Most programs offered the core components of exercise training, patient education and nutrition counselling. Alternative models were not commonly offered. Lack of human and/or financial resources as well as space constraints were reported as the major barriers to delivery. Overall, CR delivery has been characterized in less than half of the countries where it is offered. The nature of services delivered is fairly consistent with major CR guidelines and statements.