Latin-American guidelines of recommendations at discharge from an acute coronary syndrome.

The diagnostic criteria, treatments at the time of admission, and drugs used in patients with acute coronary syndrome are well defined in countless guidelines. However, there is uncertainty about the measures to recommend during patient discharge planning. This document brings together the most recent evidence and the standardized and optimal treatment for patients at the time of discharge from hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome, for comprehensive and safe care in the patient's transition between care from the acute event to the outpatient care, with the aim of optimizing the recovery of viable myocardium, guaranteeing the most appropriate secondary prevention, reducing the risk of a new coronary event and mortality, as well as the adequate reintegration of patients into daily life.

Los criterios diagnósticos, los tratamientos en el momento de la admisión y los fármacos utilizados en pacientes con síndrome coronario agudo están bien definidos en innumerables guías. Sin embargo, existe incertidumbre acerca de las medidas para recomendar durante la planificación del egreso de los pacientes. Este documento reúne las evidencias más recientes y el tratamiento estandarizado y óptimo para los pacientes al momento del egreso de una hospitalización por un síndrome coronario agudo, para un cuidado integral y seguro en la transición del paciente entre la atención del evento agudo y el cuidado ambulatorio, con el objetivo de optimizar la recuperación de miocardio viable, garantizar la prevención secundaria más adecuada, reducir el riesgo de un nuevo evento coronario y la mortalidad, así como la adecuada reinserción de los pacientes en la vida cotidiana.

[Third National Registry of Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs in Mexico (RENAPREC III-2022)]. / Tercer Registro Nacional de Programas de Rehabilitación Cardiaca en México (RENAPREC III-2022).

Introduction: In Mexico, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) as an interdisciplinary intervention with therapeutic impact in patients with heart disease is growing. There is the need to know actual conditions of CR in our country. Objectives: The objective of this National Registry is to follow-up those existing and new CR units in Mexico through the comparison between the two previous registries, RENAPREC-2009 and RENAPREC II-2015 studies. This is a descriptive study focused on diverse CR activities such as assistance training, and certification of health professionals, barriers, reference, population attended, interdisciplinarity, permanence over time, growth prospects, regulations, post-pandemic condition, integrative characteristics, and scientific research. Results: Data were collected from 45 CR centers in the 32 states, 75.5% are private practice units, 67% are new, 33% were part of RENAPREC II-2015, and 17 have continued since 2009. With a better distribution of CR units along the territory, the median reference of candidates for CR programs is 9% with a significant reduction into tiempo of enrollment to Phase II admission (19 ± 11 days). Regarding to previous registries, the coverance of Phases I, II, and III is 71%, 100%, and 93%, respectively; and a coverance increases in evaluation, risk stratification, and prescription, more comprehensive attendance and prevention strategies. Conclusions: CR in Mexico has grown in the past 7 years. Even there is still low reference and heterogeneity in specific processes, there are strengths such as interdisciplinarity, scientific professionalization of specialists, national diversification, and an official society that are consolidated over time.

Introducción: En México, la Rehabilitación Cardíaca (RC) como intervención interdisciplinaria con impacto terapéutico en paciente con cardiopatía está en crecimiento. Existe la necesidad de conocer las condiciones actuales de la RC en nuestro país. Objetivo: El objetivo de este Registro es dar seguimiento comparativo de las unidades nuevas y existentes entre los registros anteriores, RENAPREC-2009 y RENAPREC II-2015. Se trata de un estudio descriptivo centrado en diversas actividades de la RC: formación asistencial y certificación de sus profesionales, barreras, referencia, población atendida, interdisciplinariedad, permanencia en el tiempo, perspectivas de crecimiento, normativa, condición pospandemia, características integradoras e investigación. Resultados: Se recolectaron datos de 45 centros en los 32 estados, 67% son nuevos 75.5% son de práctica privada, 33% fueron parte de RENAPREC II-2015 y 17 desde 2009. Con una mejor distribución de las unidades de RC a lo largo del territorio, la mediana de referencia de pacientes candidatos a RC es ahora del 9% con reducción significativa del tiempo de admisión a Fase II (19 ± 11 días). Respecto a registros anteriores las coberturas de las Fases I, II y III son del 71%, 100% y 93%, respectivamente; con un aumento de la cobertura en evaluación, estratificación de riesgo y prescripción, atención más integral y estrategias de prevención. Conclusiones: La RC en México ha crecido en los últimos 7 años. Si bien aún existe baja referencia y heterogeneidad en procesos específicos, existen fortalezas como la interdisciplinariedad, la profesionalización científica de los especialistas, la diversificación nacional y una sociedad oficial que se consolida en el tiempo.

Third National Registry of Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs in Mexico (RENAPREC III-2022) / Tercer Registro Nacional de Programas de Rehabilitación Cardiaca en México (RENAPREC III-2022)

Abstract Introduction: In Mexico, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) as an interdisciplinary intervention with therapeutic impact in patients with heart disease is growing. There is the need to know actual conditions of CR in our country. Objectives: The objective of this National Registry is to follow-up those existing and new CR units in Mexico through the comparison between the two previous registries, RENAPREC-2009 and RENAPREC II-2015 studies. This is a descriptive study focused on diverse CR activities such as assistance training, and certification of health professionals, barriers, reference, population attended, interdisciplinarity, permanence over time, growth prospects, regulations, post-pandemic condition, integrative characteristics, and scientific research. Results: Data were collected from 45 CR centers in the 32 states, 75.5% are private practice units, 67% are new, 33% were part of RENAPREC II-2015, and 17 have continued since 2009. With a better distribution of CR units along the territory, the median reference of candidates for CR programs is 9% with a significant reduction into tiempo of enrollment to Phase II admission (19 ± 11 days). Regarding to previous registries, the coverance of Phases I, II, and III is 71%, 100%, and 93%, respectively; and a coverance increases in evaluation, risk stratification, and prescription, more comprehensive attendance and prevention strategies. Conclusions: CR in Mexico has grown in the past 7 years. Even there is still low reference and heterogeneity in specific processes, there are strengths such as interdisciplinarity, scientific professionalization of specialists, national diversification, and an official society that are consolidated over time.

resumen está disponible en el texto completo