Cardiac rehabilitation: the gateway for secondary prevention.

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a multidisciplinary supervised programme which typically consists of tailored exercise and education on lifestyle management and risk factor modification in cardiac patients. Participation in CR reduces morbidity and mortality, while improving quality of life following major cardiovascular events. Despite the benefits of CR, it is underutilised, generally in the 20%-30% range for eligible patients. Participation and adherence rates are particularly suboptimal in vulnerable populations, such as those of lower socioeconomic status and women. Interventions such as automated referral to CR or hybrid/virtual programmes can increase enrolment to CR. This review summarises the components of CR and provides recommendations for providers regarding participation and adherence. To better engage a larger proportion of CR-eligible patients, CR programmes may need to expand or adjust ways to deliver secondary prevention.

Lower-Socioeconomic Status Patients Have Extremely High-Risk Factor Profiles on Entry to Cardiac Rehabilitation.

PURPOSE: Patients with lower socioeconomic status (SES) have higher rates of cardiovascular events, yet are less likely to engage in secondary prevention such as cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Given the low number of lower-SES patients entering CR, characterization of this population has been difficult. Our CR program specifically increased recruitment of lower-SES patients, allowing for careful comparison of medical, psychosocial, and behavioral risk factors between lower- and higher-SES patients eligible for secondary prevention. METHODS: Demographic and clinical characteristics were prospectively gathered on consecutive individuals entering phase 2 CR from January 2014 to December 2022. Patients were classified as lower SES if they had Medicaid insurance. Statistical methods included chi-square and nonpaired t tests. A P value of <.01 was used to determine significance. RESULTS: The entire cohort consisted of 3131 individuals. Compared with higher-SES patients, lower-SES individuals (n = 405; 13%) were a decade younger (57.1 ± 10.4 vs 67.2 ± 11.2 yr), 5.8 times more likely to be current smokers (29 vs 5%), 1.7 times more likely to have elevated depressive symptoms, and significantly higher body mass index, waist circumference, and glycated hemoglobin A 1c , with more abnormal lipid profiles (all P s < .001). Despite being a decade younger, lower-SES patients had lower measures of cardiorespiratory fitness and self-reported physical function (both P s < .001). CONCLUSION: Lower-SES patients have a remarkably prominent high-risk cardiovascular disease profile, resulting in a substantially higher risk for a recurrent coronary event than higher-SES patients. Accordingly, efforts must be made to engage this high-risk population in CR. It is incumbent on CR programs to ensure that they are appropriately equipped to intervene on modifiable risk factors such as low cardiorespiratory fitness, obesity, depression, and smoking.

Financial incentives and case management to improve cardiac rehabilitation participation among patients with lower socio-economic status: Rationale and protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Participation in phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is associated with significant decreases in morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, attendance at CR is not optimal and certain populations, such as those with lower-socioeconomic status (SES), are less likely to participate. In order to remedy this disparity we have designed a trial to examine the efficacy of early case management and/or financial incentives for increasing CR participation among lower-SES patients. METHODS: We will employ a randomized controlled trial with a sample goal of 209 patients who will be randomized 2:3:3:3 to either a usual care control, to receive a case manager starting in-hospital, to receive financial incentives for completing CR sessions, or to receive both interventions. RESULTS: Treatment conditions will be compared on attendance at CR and end-of-intervention (four months) improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness, executive function, and health-related quality of life. The primary outcome measures for this project will be number of CR sessions completed and the percentage who complete ≥30 sessions. Secondary outcomes will include improvements in health outcomes by condition, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the intervention with a focus on potential reductions in emergency department visits and hospitalizations. We hypothesize that either intervention will perform better than the control and that the combination of interventions will perform better than either alone. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic examination of interventions will allow us to test the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of approaches that have the potential to increase CR participation substantially and significantly improve health outcomes among patients with lower-SES.

Objective measure of smoking status highlights disparities by sex.

Current smoking is the strongest predictor of future morbidity and mortality in those with cardiovascular disease, yet clinically, smoking status is usually ascertained through self-report. We objectively measured smoking status, using exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), for 1122 consecutive patients entering cardiac rehabilitation. Within those with elevated CO levels (≥4 ppm), females had CO levels almost twice that of males (20.4 vs. 11.6), suggesting higher amounts of smoking.

Carbon monoxide monitoring to objectively measure smoking status in cardiac rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: Participation in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality. However, most programs rely on self-report measures when assessing the critical risk factor of smoking. This study examined smoking status using self-report versus objective measurement using expired carbon monoxide (CO) and compared patient characteristics by CO level. METHOD: Patients were screened for smoking status when entering CR by self-report and by objectively measured CO. Measures of aerobic fitness, educational attainment, depressive symptoms, and self-reported physical function were also collected. The discrepancy between smoking status based on self-report and objective measurement was examined and patient characteristics by CO measurement were compared. RESULTS: Of the 853 patients screened, 62 self-reported current smoking and 112 had a CO of ≥ 4 ppm. Using a cut-off of ≥ 4 ppm encompassed almost all self-reported smokers (specificity: 98.5%) and identified 61 patients (not reporting current smoking) needing further screening. Further questioning yielded an additional 21 patients with combusted use (tobacco/cannabis), six nonsmoking patients with environmental CO exposure, and 34 where the reason for elevated CO was unknown. CO ≥ 4 ppm patients were younger (62.2 vs. 67.7, p < .01), had higher depression scores (5.6 vs. 3.7, Patient Health Questionairre-9, p < .01), had lower educational attainment (59.0% ≤ high school vs. 31.3%, p < .01), had lower levels of fitness (after controlling for clinical characteristics, p < .01), and completed fewer CR sessions (18 vs. 22, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of patients who are actively smoking may be misclassified by relying on patient report alone. CO monitoring provides a simple and objective method of systematically screening patients. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).