Purpose: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is underutilized with only 8-31% of eligible patients participating. Lack of referral and lack of physician endorsement are well-known barriers to participation. Physicians who lack insights regarding CR are less likely to refer patients and recommend it. Cardiology fellows are early career physicians who spend a significant amount of time treating patients eligible for CR. At one institution's cardiology fellowship program, we sought to assess fellow attitudes and knowledge base regarding CR and to determine their facilitators and barriers to CR endorsement and referral. Methods: University of Pittsburgh Department of Medicine Cardiology fellows were surveyed and interviewed to assess CR knowledge, attitudes, and perceived facilitators and barriers to CR endorsement and referral. Results: The cardiology fellows at this institution had strong belief in the benefits and cost-effectiveness of CR. Despite their support of CR, they had low CR knowledge scores. Perceived impediments to CR included complicated logistics of CR operations, limited communication between CR staff and fellows, limited time with patients, presumed patient barriers, perceived self-barriers, and poor understanding of referral processes (particularly as they varied in each hospital in which they rotated). Perceived supports to CR included greater awareness of evidence-based outcomes, awareness of patient-centered outcomes, pre-arranged order sets, and reminders for referral. Conclusion: This study revealed perceptions of cardiology fellows at one institution regarding CR that have not been considered previously. Key barriers to endorsement and referral to CR were exposed as well as opportunities to overcome them. Fellowship training affords an important opportunity to improve CR education, and to potentially improve participation of eligible patients for this important aspect of care.

Purpose: Current American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation guidelines rely primarily on cardiovascular disease (CVD)-centered metrics to stratify risk and guide care. Yet, contemporary CVD patients are often older and are more likely to have risks attributable to rudimentary functional impairments that can have disproportionate bearing on management and prognosis. In this study, we stratified risk using novel indices of physical function as well as traditional indices of CVD in patients enrolling in phase II cardiac rehabilitation (CR). We hypothesized that risk stratification (RS) using functional criteria would be nonconcordant with CVD RS in a significant number of patients, thus inferring the conceptual value of CR management priorities that are better tailored for distinctive functional risks in many patients. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of a comprehensive quality improvement database with 489 patients. Risk stratification using novel functional indices (ie, gait speed, Timed Up and Go, hand grip, sit to stand, tandem stand, and a 6-min walk test) was compared with RS using traditional CVD criteria. Results: Using functional RS, 97 patients were determined to be high risk versus 235 at low risk. Using CVD RS in the same cohort, 227 patients had high risk versus 161 who had low risk. Functional RS was consistent with CVD RS only 42.9% of the time. Conclusion: Functional RS and CVD RS varied in the same patients. Enhanced assessment of functional risks adds important prognostic refinement and greater potential to tailor exercise therapy, nutrition, and other CR caregiving priorities.