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.

Joint hypermobility was found in 11.7% of the students in our study, and the results are in harmony with the previous studies on Western populations. Although hypermobility does not seem to be very problematic in young people, as in our focus group, we believe that it is important for physicians to recognize this problem to ensure correct diagnosis and treatment, since it may lead to mimic rheumatic diseases in the future.

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.

The objective of this study was to compare the short- and long-term efficacies of splinting (S), splinting plus local steroid injection (SLSI), and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) in mild or moderate idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Patients with mild or moderate idiopathic CTS who experienced symptoms for over 6 months were included in the study. The patients were evaluated for the baseline and the third and sixth month scores after treatment. Follow-up criteria were ENMG parameters, Boston Questionnaire, and patient satisfaction. Fifty-seven hands completed the study. Twenty-three hands had been splinted for 3 months. Twenty-three hands were given a single steroid injection and splinted for 3 months, and 11 hands were operated. In the first 3 months, all treatment methods provided significant improvements in both clinical and EMG parameters in which OCTR had better outcomes on median sensorial nerve velocity at palm wrist segment. In the second 3 months, while the clinical and EMG parameters began to deteriorate in S and SLSI group, OCTR group continued to improve, and BQ functional capacity score of OCTR group was statistically better than that in conservative methods (P = 0.03). S and SLSI treatments improved clinical and EMG parameters comparable to OCTR in short term. However, these beneficial effects were transient in the sixth month follow-up and OCTR was superior to conservative treatments.

No abstract