Secondary prevention through comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation has been recognized as the most cost-effective intervention to ensure favourable outcomes across a wide spectrum of cardiovascular disease, reducing cardiovascular mortality, morbidity and disability, and to increase quality of life. The delivery of a comprehensive and ‘modern’ cardiac rehabilitation programme is mandatory both in the residential and the out-patient setting to ensure expected outcomes. The present position paper aims to update the practical recommendations on the core components and goals of cardiac rehabilitation intervention in different cardiovascular conditions, in order to assist the whole cardiac rehabilitation staff in the design and development of the programmes, and to support healthcare providers, insurers, policy makers and patients in the recognition of the positive nature of cardiac rehabilitation. Starting from the previous position paper published in 2010, this updated document maintains a disease-oriented approach, presenting both well-established and more controversial aspects. Particularly for implementation of the exercise programme, advances in different training modalities were added and new challenging populations were considered. A general table applicable to all cardiovascular conditions and specific tables for each clinical condition have been created for routine practice.

AimAlthough cardiac rehabilitation improves physical fitness after a cardiac event, many eligible patients do not participate in cardiac rehabilitation and the beneficial effects of cardiac rehabilitation are often not maintained over time. Home-based training with telemonitoring guidance could improve participation rates and enhance long-term effectiveness.Methods and resultsWe randomised 90 low-to-moderate cardiac risk patients entering cardiac rehabilitation to three months of either home-based training with telemonitoring guidance or centre-based training. Although training adherence was similar between groups, satisfaction was higher in the home-based group (p = 0.02). Physical fitness improved at discharge (p < 0.01) and at one-year follow-up (p < 0.01) in both groups, without differences between groups (home-based p = 0.31 and centre-based p = 0.87). Physical activity levels did not change during the one-year study period (centre-based p = 0.38, home-based p = 0.80). Healthcare costs were statistically non-significantly lower in the home-based group (€437 per patient, 95% confidence interval –562 to 1436, p = 0.39). From a societal perspective, a statistically non-significant difference of €3160 per patient in favour of the home-based group was found (95% confidence interval –460 to 6780, p = 0.09) and the probability that it was more cost-effective varied between 97% and 75% (willingness-to-pay of €0 and €100,000 per quality-adjusted life-years, respectively).ConclusionWe found no differences between home-based training with telemonitoring guidance and centre-based training on physical fitness, physical activity level or health-related quality of life. However, home-based training was associated with a higher patient satisfaction and appears to be more cost-effective than centre-based training. We conclude that home-based training with telemonitoring guidance can be used as an alternative to centre-based training for low-to-moderate cardiac risk patients entering cardiac rehabilitation.

The role of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation is well established in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases such as coronary artery disease and heart failure. Numerous trials have demonstrated both the effectiveness as well as the cost-effectiveness of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation in improving exercise capacity and quality of life, and in reducing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. However, the current COVID-19 pandemic has led to closure of many cardiac rehabilitation centres in Europe resulting in many eligible patients unable to participate in the optimisation of secondary prevention and physical performance. This elicits an even louder call for alternatives such as cardiac telerehabilitation to maintain the delivery of the core components of cardiac rehabilitation to cardiovascular disease patients. The present call for action paper gives an update of recent cardiac telerehabilitation studies and provides a practical guide for the setup of a comprehensive cardiac telerehabilitation intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic. This set up could also be relevant to any cardiovascular disease patient not able to visit cardiac rehabilitation centres regularly after the COVID-19 pandemic ceases.

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.

This analysis shows that HT with telemonitoring guidance has similar short-term effects on exercise capacity and quality of life as CT in CR patients.