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.

Aims The aim of this study was to estimate the burden and risk factors for ischaemic heart disease (IHD) in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2017. Methods and results Data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 were used. Prevalence, incidence, deaths, years lived with disability (YLDs), and years of life lost (YLLs) were metrics used to measure IHD burden. Population attributable fraction was used to estimate the proportion of IHD deaths attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors. Globally, in 2017, 126.5 million [95% uncertainty interval (UI) 118.6 to 134.7] people lived with IHD and 10.6 million (95% UI 9.6 to 11.8) new IHD cases occurred, resulting in 8.9 million (95% UI 8.8 to 9.1) deaths, 5.3 million (95% UI 3.7 to 7.2) YLDs, and 165.0 million (95% UI 162.2 to 168.6) YLLs. Between 1990 and 2017, despite the decrease in age-standardized rates, the global numbers of these burden metrics of IHD have significantly increased. The burden of IHD in 2017 and its temporal trends from 1990 to 2017 varied widely by geographic location. Among all potentially modifiable risk factors, age-standardized IHD deaths worldwide were primarily attributable to dietary risks, high systolic blood pressure, high LDL cholesterol, high fasting plasma glucose, tobacco use, and high body mass index in 2017. Conclusion Our results suggested that IHD remains a major public health challenge worldwide. More effective and targeted strategies aimed at implementing cost-effective interventions and addressing modifiable risk factors are urgently needed, particularly in geographies with high or increasing burden.

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.

BackgroundThe efficacy of disease management programs in improving the outcome of heart failure patients remains uncertain and may vary across health systems. This study explores whether a countrywide disease management program is superior to usual care in reducing adverse health outcomes and improving well-being among community-dwelling adult patients with moderate-to-severe chronic heart failure who have universal access to advanced health-care services and technologies.MethodsIn this multicenter open-label trial, 1,360 patients recruited after hospitalization for heart failure exacerbation (38%) or from the community (62%) were randomly assigned to either disease management or usual care. Disease management, delivered by multi-disciplinary teams, included coordination of care, patient education, monitoring disease symptoms and patient adherence to medication regimen, titration of drug therapy, and home tele-monitoring of body weight, blood pressure and heart rate. Patients assigned to usual care were treated by primary care practitioners and consultant cardiologists.The primary composite endpoint was the time elapsed till first hospital admission for heart failure exacerbation or death from any cause. Secondary endpoints included the number of all hospital admissions, health-related quality of life and depression during follow-up. Intention-to-treat comparisons between treatments were adjusted for baseline patient data and study center.ResultsDuring the follow-up, 388 (56.9%) patients assigned to disease management and 387 (57.1%) assigned to usual care had a primary endpoint event. The median (range) time elapsed until the primary endpoint event or end of study was 2.0 (0–5.0) years among patients assigned to disease management, and 1.8 (0–5.0) years among patients assigned to usual care (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.908; 95% confidence interval, 0.788 to 1.047). Hospital admissions were mostly (70%) unrelated to heart failure.Patients assigned to disease management had a better health-related quality of life and a lower depression score during follow-up.ConclusionsThis comprehensive disease management intervention was not superior to usual care with respect to the primary composite endpoint, but it improved health-related quality of life and depression. A disease-centered approach may not suffice to make a significant impact on hospital admissions and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure who have universal access to health care.Clinical trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00533013. Trial registration date: 9 August 2007. Initial protocol release date: 20 September 2007.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0855-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.