Cardiac rehabilitation availability and delivery in Europe: How does it differ by region and compare with other high-income countries?: Endorsed by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to establish cardiac rehabilitation availability and density, as well as the nature of programmes, and to compare these by European region (geoscheme) and with other high-income countries. METHODS: A survey was administered to cardiac rehabilitation programmes globally. Cardiac associations were engaged to facilitate programme identification. Density was computed using global burden of disease study ischaemic heart disease incidence estimates. Four high-income countries were selected for comparison (N = 790 programmes) to European data, and multilevel analyses were performed. RESULTS: Cardiac rehabilitation was available in 40/44 (90.9%) European countries. Data were collected in 37 (94.8% country response rate). A total of 455/1538 (29.6% response rate) programme respondents initiated the survey. Programme volumes (median 300) were greatest in western European countries, but overall were higher than in other high-income countries (P < 0.001). Across all Europe, there was on average only 1 CR spot per 7 IHD patients, with an unmet regional need of 3,449,460 spots annually. Most programmes were funded by social security (n = 25, 59.5%; with significant regional variation, P < 0.001), but in 72 (16.0%) patients paid some or all of the programme costs (or ∼18.5% of the ∼€150.0/programme) out of pocket. Guideline-indicated conditions were accepted in 70% or more of programmes (lower for stable coronary disease), with no regional variation. Programmes had a multidisciplinary team of 6.5 ± 3.0 staff (number and type varied regionally; and European programmes had more staff than other high-income countries), offering 8.5 ± 1.5/10 core components (consistent with other high-income countries) over 24.8 ± 26.0 hours (regional differences, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: European cardiac rehabilitation capacity must be augmented. Where available, services were consistent with guidelines, but varied regionally.

Prognostic Impact of Mild Hypokalemia in Terms of Death and Stroke in the General Population-A Prospective Population Study.

BACKGROUND: Potassium supplementation reduces the risk of cardiovascular mortality and stroke in population studies; however, the prognostic impact of mild hypokalemia in the general population has not been thoroughly investigated. We aimed to investigate associations between mild hypokalemia and endpoints in the general population. METHODS: Participants (aged 48-76 years) from the general population study "Copenhagen City Heart Study" (n = 5916) were studied. Participants were divided into groups according to baseline values of plasma potassium (potassium): hypokalemia (<3.7 mmol/L, n = 758), normokalemia (3.7-4.5 mmol/L, n = 4973), and high potassium (>4.5 mmol/L, n = 185). Hypokalemia was further divided as potassium <3.4 mmol/L and 3.4-3.6 mmol/L. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and nonfatal validated ischemic stroke. The secondary endpoint was acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We adjusted for conventional risk factors, diuretics, and atrial fibrillation at baseline. RESULTS: Mean potassium in the hypokalemic group was 3.5 mmol/L (range, 2.6-3.6 mmol/L) and was associated (P < 0.05) with increased systolic blood pressure, higher CHA2DS2-VASc score, and increased use of diuretics as compared with normokalemia. Baseline atrial fibrillation was equally frequent across groups. Median follow-up-time was 11.9 years (Q1-Q3: 11.4-12.5 years). Hypokalemia was borderline associated with increased stroke risk in a multivariable Cox model (including adjustment for competing risk) as compared with normokalemia (hazard ratio [HR] 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.98). The subgroup with potassium <3.4 mmol/L had higher stroke risk (HR 2.10; 95% CI, 1.19-3.73) and mortality risk (HR 1.32; 95% CI, 1.01-1.74) as compared with normokalemia. Hypokalemia was not associated with AMI, and no increased risk of mortality was seen with concomitant AMI and hypokalemia. No associations were seen with high potassium. CONCLUSION: In a general population mild hypokalemia is associated with increased stroke risk and, to a lesser degree, increased mortality risk.

Home-based cardiac rehabilitation is as effective as centre-based cardiac rehabilitation among elderly with coronary heart disease: results from a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: participation in centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is known to reduce morbidity and mortality but participation rates among the elderly are low. Establishing alternative programmes is important, and home-based CR is the predominant alternative. However, no studies have investigated the effect of home-based CR among a group of elderly patients with coronary heart disease with a long-term follow-up. METHODS: randomised clinical trial comparing home-based CR with comprehensive centre-based CR among patients ≥ 65 years with coronary heart disease. RESULTS: seventy-five patients participated. There were no significant differences in exercise capacity after the intervention between home and centre-based CR. Adjusted mean differences of peak VO2 = 0.9 ml/kg/min (95% CI -0.7, 2.4) and of 6 min walk test = -18.7 m (95% CI -56.4, 18.9). In addition, no differences were found in the secondary outcomes of systolic blood pressure (-0.6 mmHg, 95% CI -11.3, 10.0), LDL cholesterol (0.3 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.04, 0.7), HDL cholesterol (0.2 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.01, 0.3), body composition, proportion of smokers and health-related quality of life. A group of patients who did not have an effect of either programmes were characterised by higher age, living alone and having COPD. At 12 months of follow-up, both groups had a significant decline in exercise capacity. CONCLUSIONS: home-based CR is as effective as centre-based CR in improving exercise capacity, risk factor control and health-related quality of life. However, a group of patients did not improve regardless of the type of intervention. Continued follow-up is essential in order to maintain the gained improvements.