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 < .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.InterpretationCR 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.
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 < 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 < 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).InterpretationThis first-ever survey of CR around the globe suggests CR quality is high. However, there is significant regional variation, which could impact patient outcomes.
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
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether dyslipidemia affects the mortality and severity of COVID-19, we also aimed to evaluate whether other comorbidities influence the association. Methods: A systematic literature search using PubMed, Embase, and EuropePMC was performed on 8 October 2020. This study’s main outcome is a poor composite outcome, comprising of mortality and severe COVID-19. Results: There were 9 studies with 3663 patients. The prevalence of dyslipidemia in this pooled analysis was 18% (4%-32%). Dyslipidemia was associated with increased composite poor outcome (RR 1.39 [1.02, 1.88], P = .010; I2: 56.7%, P = .018). Subgroup analysis showed that dyslipidemia was associated with severe COVID-19 (RR 1.39 [1.03, 1.87], P = .008; I2: 57.4%, P = .029). Meta-regression showed that the association between dyslipidemia and poor outcome varies by age (coefficient: −0.04, P = .033), male gender (coefficient: −0.03, P = .042), and hypertension (coefficient: −0.02, P = .033), but not diabetes (coefficient: −0.24, P = .135) and cardiovascular diseases (coefficient: −0.01, P = .506). Inverted funnel-plot was relatively symmetrical. Egger’s test indicates that the pooled analysis was not statistically significant for small-study effects ( P = .206). Conclusion: Dyslipidemia potentially increases mortality and severity of COVID-19. The association was stronger in patients with older age, male, and hypertension. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42020213491
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.