Economic Outcomes of Rehabilitation Therapy in Older Patients With Acute Heart Failure in the REHAB-HF Trial: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In the Rehabilitation Therapy in Older Acute Heart Failure Patients (REHAB-HF) trial, a novel 12-week rehabilitation intervention demonstrated significant improvements in validated measures of physical function, quality of life, and depression, but no significant reductions in rehospitalizations or mortality compared with a control condition during the 6-month follow up. The economic implications of these results are important given the increasing pressures for cost containment in health care. Objective: To report the economic outcomes of the REHAB-HF trial and estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Design, Setting, Participants: The multicenter REHAB-HF trial randomized 349 patients 60 years or older who were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure to rehabilitation intervention or a control group; patients were enrolled from September 17, 2014, through September 19, 2019. For this preplanned secondary analysis of the economic outcomes, data on medical resource use and quality of life (via the 5-level EuroQol 5-Dimension scores converted to health utilities) were collected. Medical resource use and medication costs were estimated using 2019 US Medicare payments and the Federal Supply Schedule, respectively. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using the validated Tools for Economic Analysis of Patient Management Interventions in Heart Failure Cost-Effectiveness Model, which uses an individual-patient simulation model informed by the prospectively collected trial data. Data were analyzed from March 24, 2019, to December 1, 2020. Interventions: Rehabilitation intervention or control. Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the lifetime estimated cost per QALY gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). Results: Among the 349 patients included in the analysis (183 women [52.4%]; mean [SD] age, 72.7 [8.1] years; 176 non-White [50.4%] and 173 White [49.6%]), mean (SD) cumulative costs per patient were $26 421 ($38 955) in the intervention group (excluding intervention costs) and $27 650 ($30 712) in the control group (difference, -$1229; 95% CI, -$8159 to $6394; P = .80). The mean (SD) cost of the intervention was $4204 ($2059). Quality of life gains were significantly greater in the intervention vs control group during 6 months (mean utility difference, 0.074; P = .001) and sustained beyond the 12-week intervention. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated at $58 409 and $35 600 per QALY gained for the full cohort and in patients with preserved ejection fraction, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: These analyses suggest that longer-term benefits of this novel rehabilitation intervention, particularly in the subgroup of patients with preserved ejection fraction, may yield good value to the health care system. However, long-term cost-effectiveness is currently uncertain and dependent on the assumption that benefits are sustained beyond study follow-up, which needs to be corroborated in future trials in this patient population.

Cost-effectiveness of Cardiac Telerehabilitation With Relapse Prevention for the Treatment of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease in the Netherlands.

Importance: Cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) has been found to be a safe and beneficial alternative to traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and might be associated with higher participation rates by reducing barriers to CR use. However, implementation of CTR interventions remains low, which may be owing to a lack of cost-effectiveness analyses of data from large-scale randomized clinical trials. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of CTR with relapse prevention compared with center-based CR among patients with coronary artery disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation performed a cost-utility analysis of data from the SmartCare-CAD (Effects of Cardiac Telerehabilitation in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Using a Personalized Patient-Centred ICT Platform) randomized clinical trial. The cost-effectiveness and utility of 3 months of cardiac telerehabilitation followed by 9 months of relapse prevention were compared with the cost-effectiveness of traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation. The analysis included 300 patients with stable coronary artery disease who received care at a CR center serving 2 general hospitals in the Netherlands between May 23, 2016, and July 26, 2018. All patients were entering phase 2 of outpatient CR and were followed up for 1 year (until August 14, 2019). Data were analyzed from September 21, 2020, to September 24, 2021. Intervention: After baseline measurements were obtained, participants were randomly assigned on a 1:1 ratio to receive CTR (intervention group) or center-based CR (control group) using computerized block randomization. After 6 supervised center-based training sessions, patients in the intervention group continued training at home using a heart rate monitor and accelerometer. Patients uploaded heart rate and physical activity data and discussed their progress during a weekly video consultation with their physical therapist. After 3 months, weekly coaching was concluded, and on-demand coaching was initiated for relapse prevention; patients were instructed to continue using their wearable sensors and were contacted in cases of nonadherence to the intervention or reduced exercise or physical activity volumes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality-adjusted life-years were assessed using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level survey (EQ-5D-5L) and the EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS), and cardiac-associated health care costs and non-health care costs were measured by health care consumption, productivity, and informal care questionnaires (the Medical Consumption Questionnaire, the Productivity Cost Questionnaire, and the Valuation of Informal Care Questionnaire) designed by the Institute for Medical Technology Assessment. Costs were converted to 2020 price levels (in euros) using the Dutch consumer price index (to convert to US dollars, euro values were multiplied by 1.142, which was the mean exchange rate in 2020). Results: Among 300 patients (266 men [88.7%]), the mean (SD) age was 60.7 (9.5) years. The quality of life among patients receiving CTR vs center-based CR was comparable during the study according to the results of both utility measures (mean difference on EQ-5D-5L: -0.004; P = .82; mean difference on EQ-VAS: -0.001; P = .92). Intervention costs were significantly higher for CTR (mean [SE], €224 [€4] [$256 ($4)]) compared with center-based CR (mean [SE], €156 [€5] [$178 ($6)]; P < .001); however, no difference in overall cardiac health care costs was observed between CTR (mean [SE], €4787 [€503] [$5467 ($574)] and center-based CR (mean [SE], €5507 [€659] [$6289 ($753)]; P = .36). From a societal perspective, CTR was associated with lower costs compared with center-based CR (mean [SE], €20 495 [€ 2751] [$23 405 ($3142)] vs €24 381 [€3613] [$27 843 ($4126)], respectively), although this difference was not statistically significant (-€3887 [-$4439]; P = .34). Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, a CTR intervention with relapse prevention was likely to be cost-effective compared with center-based CR, suggesting that CTR maybe used as an alternative intervention for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. These results add to the evidence base in favor of CTR and may increase the implementation of CTR interventions in clinical practice.

Financial Analysis of Cardiac Rehabilitation and the Impact of COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Provision of phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has been directly impacted by coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Economic analyses to date have not identified the financial implications of pandemic-related changes to CR. The aim of this study was to compare the costs and reimbursements of CR between two periods: (1) pre-COVID-19 and (2) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Health care costs of providing CR were calculated using a microcosting approach. Unit costs of CR were based on staff time, consumables, and overhead costs. Reimbursement rates were derived from commercial and public health insurance. The mean cost and reimbursement/participant were calculated. Staff and participant COVID-19 infections were also examined. RESULTS: The mean number of CR participants enrolled/mo declined during the pandemic (-10%; 33.8 ± 2.0 vs 30.5 ± 3.2, P = .39), the mean cost/participant increased marginally (+13%; $2897 ± $131 vs $3265 ± $149, P = .09), and the mean reimbursement/participant decreased slightly (-4%; $2959 ± $224 vs $2844 ± $181, P = .70). However, these differences did not reach statistical significance. The pre-COVID mean operating surplus/participant ($62 ± $140) eroded into a deficit of -$421 ± $170/participant during the pandemic. No known COVID-19 infections occurred among the 183 participants and 14 on-site staff members during the pandemic period. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-related safety protocols required CR programs to modify service delivery. Results demonstrate that it was possible to safely maintain this critically important service; however, CR program costs exceeded revenues. The challenge going forward is to optimize CR service delivery to increase participation and achieve financial solvency.

Cardiac rehabilitation availability and characteristics in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Global Comparison.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to establish availability and characteristics of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), where cardiovascular disease is highly prevalent. METHODS: In this cross-sectional sub-analysis focusing on the 35 LAC countries, local cardiovascular societies identified CR programs globally. An online survey was administered to identified programs, assessing capacity and characteristics. CR need was computed relative to ischemic heart disease (IHD) incidence from the Global Burden of Disease study. RESULTS: ≥1 CR program was identified in 24 LAC countries (68.5% availability; median = 3 programs/country). Data were collected in 20/24 countries (83.3%); 139/255 programs responded (54.5%), and compared to responses from 1082 programs in 111 countries. LAC density was 1 CR spot per 24 IHD patients/year (vs 18 globally). Greatest need was observed in Brazil, Dominican Republic and Mexico (all with >150,000 spots needed/year). In 62.8% (vs 37.2% globally P < .001) of CR programs, patients pay out-of-pocket for some or all of CR. CR teams were comprised of a mean of 5.0 ± 2.3 staff (vs 6.0 ± 2.8 globally; P < .001); Social workers, dietitians, kinesiologists, and nurses were significantly less common on CR teams than globally. Median number of core components offered was 8 (vs 9 globally; P < .001). Median dose of CR was 36 sessions (vs 24 globally; P < .001). Only 27 (20.9%) programs offered alternative CR models (vs 31.1% globally; P < .01). CONCLUSION: In LAC countries, there is very limited CR capacity in relation to need. CR dose is high, but comprehensiveness low, which could be rectified with a more multidisciplinary team.

Cardiopulmonary Telerehabilitation.

Cardiopulmonary telerehabilitation is a safe and effective alternative to traditional center-based rehabilitation. It offers a sustainable solution to more conveniently meet the needs of patients with acute or chronic, preexisting or newly acquired, cardiopulmonary diseases. To maximize success, programs should prioritize basic, safe, and timely care options over comprehensive or complex approaches. The future should incorporate new strategies learned during a global pandemic and harness the power of information and communication technology to provide evidence-based patient-centered care. This review highlights clinical considerations, current evidence, recommendations, and future directions of cardiopulmonary telerehabilitation.

Prognostic effects of cardiovascular rehabilitation: facts and myths.

Since CR was introduced, studies have been carried out to discover the effect of CRHPs on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and on heart-disease patients' quality of life. The first meta-analyses showed improvement in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, although the studies were conducted in the coronary pre-reperfusion era, before the generalized use in secondary prevention of drugs such as statins, beta-blockers, or renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors, which have produced a decrease in cardiovascular mortality. In Europe, analyzing 25 studies with more than 200,000 patients. It concluded that, in spite of the great heterogeneity of the programs, CR clearly decreases mortality after ACS. Nevertheless, a strategy of CRHP standardization and evaluation is needed. In 2017, a study was carried out in our hospital to evaluate the effectiveness of multidisciplinary CRHP intervention on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, recurrence of cardiovascular events, the control of RFCV and lifestyle changes in patients after ACS. A total of 442 patients were included who had presented an acute cardiovascular event in the previous six months; 306 patients from the CR group and 136 others with standard cardiology follow-up were used as controls. 405 patients completed follow-up for a median of 60 months. Compared to the usual treatments in cardiology, the patients who underwent CRHPs presented fewer readmissions for cardiovascular reasons (17% vs. 43.38%, P<0.001), fewer major cardiovascular events (11.9% vs. 27.2%, P<0.001) and new revascularizations (9.3% vs. 21.32%, P=0.001), with lower cardiovascular mortality (0 vs. 2.2%, P=0.014). It also led to better control of the RFCV (66% vs. 19.85%, P<0.001) and favored lifestyle changes in these patients (91% vs. 61%, P<0.001). Therefore, in our setting, the performance of CRHPs was shown to be effective in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and in the secondary prevention of coronary patients.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a therapist-assisted web-based intervention for depression and anxiety in patients with ischemic heart disease attending cardiac rehabilitation [eMindYourHeart trial]: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: One in five patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) develop comorbid depression or anxiety. Depression is associated with risk of non-adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and dropout, inadequate risk factor management, poor quality of life (QoL), increased healthcare costs and premature death. In 2020, IHD and depression are expected to be among the top contributors to the disease-burden worldwide. Hence, it is paramount to treat both the underlying somatic disease as well as depression and anxiety. eMindYourHeart will evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a therapist-assisted eHealth intervention targeting depression and anxiety in patients with IHD, which may help fill this gap in clinical care. METHODS: eMindYourHeart is a multi-center, two-armed, unblinded randomised controlled trial that will compare a therapist-assisted eHealth intervention to treatment as usual in 188 CR patients with IHD and comorbid depression or anxiety. The primary outcome of the trial is symptoms of depression, measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months include symptoms of depression and anxiety (HADS), perceived stress, health complaints, QoL (HeartQoL), trial dropout (number of patients dropped out in either arm at 3 months) and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first trial to evaluate both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a therapist-assisted eHealth intervention in patients with IHD and comorbid psychological distress as part of CR. Integrating screening for and treatment of depression and anxiety into standard CR may decrease dropout and facilitate better risk factor management, as it is presented as "one package" to patients, and they can access the eMindYourHeart program in their own time and at their own convenience. The trial holds a strong potential for improving the quality of care for an increasing population of patients with IHD and comorbid depression, anxiety or both, with likely benefits to patients, families, and society at large due to potential reductions in direct and indirect costs, if proven successful. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04172974 on November 21, 2019 with registration number [NCT04172974].

The Effects of Maintenance Cardiac Rehabilitation: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.

PURPOSE: Maintenance cardiac rehabilitation (M-CR) programs aim to preserve the health benefits achieved during phase II cardiac rehabilitation (CR). The aim of this study was to establish the effects of M-CR on functional capacity, quality of life, risk factors, costs, mortality, and morbidity, among other outcomes. METHODS: Scopus, ISI Web of Science, PubMed, Embase & Embase classic OVID, and Lilacs were searched. Randomized controlled trials, published between 2000 and 2016, on the effects of M-CR in patients with cardiovascular disease, who had graduated from CR, having a control or comparison arm were included. Citations were processed by two authors, independently. Methodological quality was assessed using PEDro, and level of evidence graded with the Scottish scale. Outcomes were qualitatively synthesized. RESULTS: The searches retrieved 1901 studies with 26 articles meeting inclusion criteria (3752 participants). Some trials tested M-CR in nonclinical settings, and others used resistance or high-intensity interval training. The methodological quality of 11 articles was good, with a level of evidence (1+) and a grade B recommendation. Results showed M-CR resulted in increased or maintained functional capacity, quality of life, and physical activity levels, when compared with the control. No adverse events were reported. Few studies assessed rehospitalizations and mortality. CONCLUSION: Quality of included trials was low because it is not possible to double-blind in M-CR trials and also due to the heterogeneity of M-CR interventions. Understanding, availability, and use of M-CR programs should be increased.

Quantifying the impact of delayed delivery of cardiac rehabilitation on patients' health.

BACKGROUND: Despite its role as an effective intervention to improve the long-term health of patients with cardiovascular disease and existence of national guidelines on timeliness, many health services still fail to offer cardiac rehabilitation in a timely manner after referral. The impact of this failure on patient health and the additional burden on healthcare providers in an English setting is quantified in this article. METHODS: Two logistic regressions are conducted, using the British Heart Foundation National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation dataset, to estimate the impact of delayed cardiac rehabilitation initiation on the level of uptake and completion. The results of these regressions are applied to a decision model to estimate the long-term implications of these factors on patient health and National Health Service expenditure. RESULTS: We demonstrate that the failure of 43.6% of patients in England to start cardiac rehabilitation within the recommended timeframe results in a 15.3% reduction in uptake, and 7.4% in completion. These combine to cause an average lifetime loss of 0.08 years of life expectancy per person. Scaled up to an annual cohort this implies 10,753 patients not taking up cardiac rehabilitation due to the delay, equating to a loss of 3936 years of life expectancy. We estimate that an additional £12.3 million of National Health Service funding could be invested to alleviate the current delay. CONCLUSIONS: The current delay in many patients starting cardiac rehabilitation is causing quantifiable and avoidable harm to their long-term health; policy and research must now look at both supply and demand solutions in tackling this issue.

Rethinking rehabilitation after percutaneous coronary intervention: a protocol of a multicentre cohort study on continuity of care, health literacy, adherence and costs at all care levels (the CONCARDPCI).

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) aims to provide instant relief of symptoms, and improve functional capacity and prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease. Although patients may experience a quick recovery, continuity of care from hospital to home can be challenging. Within a short time span, patients must adjust their lifestyle, incorporate medications and acquire new support. Thus, CONCARDPCI will identify bottlenecks in the patient journey from a patient perspective to lay the groundwork for integrated, coherent pathways with innovative modes of healthcare delivery. The main objective of the CONCARDPCI is to investigate (1) continuity of care, (2) health literacy and self-management, (3) adherence to treatment, and (4) healthcare utilisation and costs, and to determine associations with future short and long-term health outcomes in patients after PCI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective multicentre cohort study organised in four thematic projects plans to include 3000 patients. All patients undergoing PCI at seven large PCI centres based in two Nordic countries are prospectively screened for eligibility and included in a cohort with a 1-year follow-up period including data collection of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and a further 10-year follow-up for adverse events. In addition to PROs, data are collected from patient medical records and national compulsory registries. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval has been granted by the Norwegian Regional Committee for Ethics in Medical Research in Western Norway (REK 2015/57), and the Data Protection Agency in the Zealand region (REG-145-2017). Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications and to patients through patient organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03810612.

Cost-utility analysis of learning and coping versus standard education in cardiac rehabilitation: a randomised controlled trial with 3 years of follow-up.

Objectives: To enhance adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (CR), a patient education programme called 'learning and coping' (LC-programme) was implemented in three hospitals in Denmark. The aim of this study was to investigate the cost-utility of the LC-programme compared with the standard CR-programme. Methods: 825 patients with ischaemic heart disease or heart failure were randomised to the LC-programme or the standard CR-programme and were followed for 3 years.A societal cost perspective was applied and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were based on SF-6D measurements. Multiple imputation technique was used to handle missing data on the SF-6D. The statistical analyses were based on means and bootstrapped SEs. Regression framework was employed to estimate the net benefit and to illustrate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: No statistically significant differences were found between the two programmes in total societal costs (4353 Euros; 95% CI -3828 to 12 533) or in QALY (-0.006; 95% CI -0.053 to 0.042). At a threshold of 40 000 Euros, the LC-programme was found to be cost-effective at 15% probability; however, for patients with heart failure, due to increased cost savings, the probability of cost-effectiveness increased to 91%. Conclusions: While the LC-programme did not appear to be cost-effective in CR, important heterogeneity was noted for subgroups of patients. The LC-programme was demonstrated to increase adherence to the rehabilitation programme and to be cost-effective among patients with heart failure. However, further research is needed to study the dynamic value of heterogeneity due to the small sample size in this subgroup.

Association Between Patient Cost Sharing and Cardiac Rehabilitation Adherence.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between cost sharing and adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (CR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected detailed cost-sharing information for patients enrolled in CR at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, including the presence (or absence) and amounts of co-pays and deductibles. We evaluated the association between cost sharing and the total number of CR sessions attended as well as the influence of household income on CR attendance. RESULTS: In 2015, 603 patients enrolled in CR had complete cost-sharing information. In total, 235 (39%) had some form of cost sharing. Of these, 192 (82%) had co-pays (median co-pay, $20; interquartile range [IQR], $10-$32) and 79 (34%) had an unmet deductible (median, $500; IQR, $250-$1800). The presence of any amount or form of cost sharing was associated with 6 fewer sessions of CR (16; IQR, 4-36 vs 10; IQR, 4-27; P<.001). Patients hospitalized in November or December with deductibles that renewed in January attended 4.5 fewer sessions of CR (8.5; IQR, 3.25-12.50 vs 13; IQR, 5.25-36.00; P=.049). After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, every $10 increase in co-pay was associated with 1.5 (95% CI, -2.3 to -0.7) fewer sessions of CR (P<.001). Household income did not moderate these relationships. CONCLUSION: Cost sharing was associated with lower CR attendance and exhibited a dose-response relationship such that higher cost sharing was associated with lower CR attendance. Given that CR is cost-effective and underutilized, insurance companies and other payers should reevaluate their cost-sharing policies for CR.

Cardiac Rehabilitation as Part of Management in Postacute Care: Opportunities for Improving Care.

Cardiac rehabilitation is an evidence-based intervention, yet only 20% of eligible patients attend. Participation is even lower for patients discharged to postacute care. The lack of data surrounding the use, benefit, safety, and feasibility of cardiac rehabilitation for elderly cardiac patients has contributed to inaccurate perceptions and related patterns of underuse. However, recently published studies are creating new opportunities for the integration of cardiac rehabilitation into postacute care services. This article reviews the current state of reimbursement and use of cardiac rehabilitation, gaps in services, and opportunities to improve the use of cardiac rehabilitation, and provides recommendations for future research.

Advances in rehabilitation for chronic diseases: improving health outcomes and function.

Much of the burden on healthcare systems is related to the management of chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Although conventional outpatient cardiopulmonary rehabilitation programs significantly decrease morbidity and mortality and improve function and health related quality of life for people with chronic diseases, rehabilitation programs are underused. Barriers to enrollment are multifactorial and include failure to recommend and refer patients to these services; poor communication with patients about potential benefits; and patient factors including logistical and financial barriers, comorbidities, and competing demands that make participation in facility based programs difficult. Recent advances in rehabilitation programs that involve remotely delivered technology could help deliver services to more people who might benefit. Problems with intensity, adherence, and safety of home based programs have been investigated in recent clinical trials, and larger dissemination and implementation trials are under way. This review summarizes the evidence for benefit of in-person cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation programs. It also reviews the literature on newer developments, such as home based remotely mediated exercise programs developed to decrease cost and improve accessibility, high intensity interval training in cardiac rehabilitation, and alternative therapies such as tai chi and yoga for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Cardiac rehabilitation delivery in low/middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) availability, programme characteristics and barriers are not well-known in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, they were compared with high-income countries (HICs) and by CR funding source. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was administered to CR programmes globally. Need for CR was computed using incident ischaemic heart disease (IHD) estimates from the Global Burden of Disease study. General linear mixed models were performed. RESULTS: CR was identified in 55/138 (39.9%) LMICs; 47/55 (85.5% country response rate) countries participated and 335 (53.5% programme response) surveys were initiated. There was one CR spot for every 66 IHD patients in LMICs (vs 3.4 in HICs). CR was most often paid by patients in LMICs (n=212, 65.0%) versus government in HICs (n=444, 60.2%; p<0.001). Over 85% of programmes accepted guideline-indicated patients. Cardiologists (n=266, 89.3%), nurses (n=234, 79.6%; vs 544, 91.7% in HICs, p=0.001) and physiotherapists (n=233, 78.7%) were the most common providers on CR teams (mean=5.8±2.8/programme). Programmes offered 7.3±1.8/10 core components (vs 7.9±1.7 in HICs, p<0.01) over 33.7±30.7 sessions (significantly greater in publicly funded programmes; p<0.001). Publicly funded programmes were more likely to have social workers and psychologists on staff, and to offer tobacco cessation and psychosocial counselling. CONCLUSION: CR is only available in 40% of LMICs, but where offered is fairly consistent with guidelines. Governments should enact policies to reimburse CR so patients do not pay out-of-pocket.

Improving cardiac rehabilitation uptake: Potential health gains by socioeconomic status.

BACKGROUND: Globally, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recommended as soon as possible after admission from an acute myocardial infarction (MI) or revascularisation. However, uptake is consistently poor internationally, ranging from 10% to 60%. The low level of uptake is compounded by variation across different socioeconomic groups. Policy recommendations continue to focus on increasing uptake and addressing inequalities in participation; however, to date, there is a paucity of economic evidence evaluating higher CR participation rates and their relevance to socioeconomic inequality. METHODS: This study constructed a de-novo cost-effectiveness model of CR, utilising the results from the latest Cochrane review and national CR audit data. We explore the role of socioeconomic status by incorporating key deprivation parameters and determine the population health gains associated with achieving an uptake target of 65%. RESULTS: We find that the low cost of CR and the potential for reductions in subsequent MI and revascularisation rates combine to make it a highly cost-effective intervention. While CR is less cost-effective for more deprived groups, the lower level of uptake in these groups makes the potential health gains, from achieving the target, greater. Using England as a model, we estimate the expenditure that could be justified while maintaining the cost-effectiveness of CR at £68.4 m per year. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing CR uptake is cost-effective and can also be implemented to reduce known socioeconomic inequalities. Using an estimation of potential population health gains and justifiable expenditure, we have produced tools with which policymakers and commissioners can encourage greater utilisation of CR services.

Five-year costs from a randomised comparison of bilateral and single internal thoracic artery grafts.

BACKGROUND: The use of bilateral internal thoracic arteries (BITA) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) may improve survival compared with CABG using single internal thoracic arteries (SITA). We assessed the long-term costs of BITA compared with SITA. METHODS: Between June 2004 and December 2007, 3102 patients from 28 hospitals in seven countries were randomised to CABG surgery using BITA (n=1548) or SITA (n=1554). Detailed resource use data were collected from the initial hospital episode and annually up to 5 years. The associated costs of this resource use were assessed from a UK perspective with 5 year totals calculated for each trial arm and pre-selected patient subgroups. RESULTS: Total costs increased by approximately £1000 annually in each arm, with no significant annual difference between trial arms. Cumulative costs per patient at 5-year follow-up remained significantly higher in the BITA group (£18 629) compared with the SITA group (£17 480; mean cost difference £1149, 95% CI £330 to £1968, p=0.006) due to the higher costs of the initial procedure. There were no significant differences between the trial arms in the cost associated with healthcare contacts, medication use or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Higher index costs for BITA were still present at 5-year follow-up mainly driven by the higher initial cost with no subsequent difference emerging between 1 year and 5 years of follow-up. The overall cost-effectiveness of the two procedures, to be assessed at the primary endpoint of the 10-year follow-up, will depend on composite differences in costs and quality-adjusted survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN46552265.

Cost-Effectiveness of Exercise-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation in Chilean Patients Surviving Acute Coronary Syndrome.

PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of 3 models of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) compared with standard care in survivors of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within the public health system in Chile. METHODS: A Markov model was designed using 5 health states: ACS survivor, second ACS, complications, general mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. The transition probabilities between health states for standard care and corresponding relative risk for CR were calculated from a systematic review. Health benefits were measured with the EuroQol 5-dimensional 3-level (EQ-5D-3L) survey. Costs for each health state were quantified using the national cost verification study. The CR cost was estimated with a microcosting methodology. The time horizon was a lifetime and the discount rate was 3% per year for costs and benefits. Deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed. Structural uncertainty was managed by designing 3 scenarios: CR as currently delivered in a specific Chilean public health center, CR as recommended by South American guidelines, and CR as proposed for low-resource settings. RESULTS: Cardiac rehabilitation versus standard care showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the standard model of $722, for the South American model of $1247, and for the low-resource model of $666. The tornado diagram showed higher uncertainty in relative risk for the complications state and for the second ACS state. CONCLUSION: Considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of 1 unit of gross domestic product per capita (∼$19 000), CR is highly cost-effective for the public health system in Chile.

Validity of the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test to Assess Exercise Safety When Initiating Cardiac Rehabilitation in Low-Resource Settings.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the validity of the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT) for determining risk stratification in cardiac rehabilitation (CR). METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study at a major CR center in a middle-income country. Clinically stable adult cardiac patients underwent an ISWT and an exercise test (ET), wore a pedometer for 7 d, and completed the Godin-Shepherd Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire. Metabolic equivalents of task (METs) achieved on the ISWT were calculated. RESULTS: One hundred fifteen patients were evaluated. The mean ± standard deviation distance on the ISWT was 372.70 ± 128.52 m and METs were 5.03 ± 0.62. The correlation of ISWT distance with ET METs (7.57 ± 2.57), steps/d (4556.71 ± 3280.88), and self-reported exercise (13.08 ± 15.19) was rs = 0.61 (P < .001), rs = 0.37 (P < .001), and rs = 0.20 (P = .031), respectively. Distance on the ISWT accurately predicted METs from the ET (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.774). The ability to walk ≥410 m on the ISWT predicted, with a specificity of 81.5% and a sensitivity of 65.6%, a functional capacity of ≥7 METs on ET. CONCLUSION: The ISWT is an alternative way to evaluate functional capacity in CR and can contribute to the process of identifying patients at low risk for a cardiac event during exercise at moderate intensity.

The cost effectiveness of REACH-HF and home-based cardiac rehabilitation compared with the usual medical care for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A decision model-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: The REACH-HF (Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure) trial found that the REACH-HF home-based cardiac rehabilitation intervention resulted in a clinically meaningful improvement in disease-specific health-related quality of life in patients with reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF). The aims of this study were to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of the addition of REACH-HF intervention or home-based cardiac rehabilitation to usual care compared with usual care alone in patients with HFrEF. DESIGN AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed using a patient lifetime horizon and integrating evidence from the REACH-HF trial, a systematic review/meta-analysis of randomised trials, estimates of mortality and hospital admission and UK costs at 2015/2016 prices. Taking a UK National Health and Personal Social Services perspective we report the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, assessing uncertainty using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In base case analysis, the REACH-HF intervention was associated with per patient mean QALY gain of 0.23 and an increased mean cost of £400 compared with usual care, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of £1720. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 78% probability that REACH-HF is cost effective versus usual care at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results were similar for home-based cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care. Sensitivity analyses indicate the findings to be robust to changes in model assumptions and parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Our cost-utility analyses indicate that the addition of the REACH-HF intervention and home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are likely to be cost-effective treatment options versus usual care alone in patients with HFrEF.