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.

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing is performed increasingly for cardiorespiratory fitness assessment and preoperative risk stratification. Lower limb osteoarthritis is a common comorbidity in surgical patients, meaning traditional cycle ergometry-based cardiopulmonary exercise testing is difficult. The purpose of this study was to compare cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables and subjective responses in four different exercise modalities. In this crossover study, 15 patients with osteoarthritis scheduled for total hip or knee arthroplasty (mean (SD) age 68 (7) years; body mass index 31.4 (4.1) kg.m-2) completed cardiopulmonary exercise testing on a treadmill, elliptical cross-trainer, cycle and arm ergometer. Mean (SD) peak oxygen consumption was 20-30% greater on the lower limb modalities (treadmill 21.5 (4.6) (p < 0.001); elliptical cross-trainer (21.2 (4.1) (p < 0.001); and cycle ergometer (19.4 (4.2) ml.min À1 .kg À1 (p = 0.001), respectively) than on the arm ergometer (15.7 (3.7) ml.min-1 .kg-1). Anaerobic threshold was 25-50% greater on the lower limb modalities (treadmill 13.5 (3.1) (p < 0.001); elliptical cross-trainer 14.6 (3.0) (p < 0.001); and cycle ergometer 10.7 (2.9) (p = 0.003)) compared with the arm ergometer (8.4 (1.7) ml.min À1 .kg À1). The median (95%CI) difference between preexercise and peak-exercise pain scores was greater for tests on the treadmill (2.0 (0.0-5.0) (p = 0.001); elliptical cross-trainer (3.0 (2.0-4.0) (p = 0.001); and cycle ergometer (3.0 (1.0-5.0) (p = 0.001)), compared with the arm ergometer (0.0 (0.0-1.0) (p = 0.406)). Despite greater peak exercise pain, cardiopulmonary exercise testing modalities utilising the lower limbs affected by osteoarthritis elicited higher peak oxygen consumption and anaerobic threshold values compared with arm ergometry.

No abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.