This article describes the October 2020 proceedings of the Million Hearts Cardiac Rehabilitation Think Tank: Accelerating New Care Models, convened with representatives from professional organizations, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs, academic institutions, federal agencies, payers, and patient representative groups. As CR delivery evolves, terminology is evolving to reflect not where activities occur (eg, center, home) but how CR is delivered: in-person synchronous, synchronous with real-time audiovisual communication (virtual), or asynchronous (remote). Patients and CR staff may interact through ≥1 delivery modes. Though new models may change how CR is delivered and who can access CR, new models should not change what is delivered-a multidisciplinary program addressing CR core components. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency, Medicare issued waivers to allow virtual CR; it is unclear whether these waivers will become permanent policy post-public health emergency. Given CR underuse and disparities in delivery, new models must equitably address patient and health system contributors to disparities. Strategies for implementing new CR care models address safety, exercise prescription, monitoring, and education. The available evidence supports the efficacy and safety of new CR care models. Still, additional research should study diverse populations, impact on patient-centered outcomes, effect on long-term outcomes and health care utilization, and implementation in diverse settings. CR is evolving to include in-person synchronous, virtual, and remote modes of delivery; there is significant enthusiasm for implementing new care models and learning how new care models can broaden access to CR, improve patient outcomes, and address health inequities.

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an evidence-based intervention that uses patient education, health behavior modification, and exercise training to improve secondary prevention outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. CR programs reduce morbidity and mortality rates in adults with ischemic heart disease, heart failure, or cardiac surgery but are significantly underused, with only a minority of eligible patients participating in CR in the United States. New delivery strategies are urgently needed to improve participation. One potential strategy is home-based CR (HBCR). In contrast to center-based CR services, which are provided in a medically supervised facility, HBCR relies on remote coaching with indirect exercise supervision and is provided mostly or entirely outside of the traditional center-based setting. Although HBCR has been successfully deployed in the United Kingdom, Canada, and other countries, most US healthcare organizations have little to no experience with such programs. The purpose of this scientific statement is to identify the core components, efficacy, strengths, limitations, evidence gaps, and research necessary to guide the future delivery of HBCR in the United States. Previous randomized trials have generated low- to moderate-strength evidence that HBCR and center-based CR can achieve similar improvements in 3- to 12-month clinical outcomes. Although HBCR appears to hold promise in expanding the use of CR to eligible patients, additional research and demonstration projects are needed to clarify, strengthen, and extend the HBCR evidence base for key subgroups, including older adults, women, underrepresented minority groups, and other higher-risk and understudied groups. In the interim, we conclude that HBCR may be a reasonable option for selected clinically stable low- to moderate-risk patients who are eligible for CR but cannot attend a traditional center-based CR program.

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an evidence-based intervention that uses patient education, health behavior modification, and exercise training to improve secondary prevention outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. CR programs reduce morbidity and mortality rates in adults with ischemic heart disease, heart failure, or cardiac surgery but are significantly underused, with only a minority of eligible patients participating in CR in the United States. New delivery strategies are urgently needed to improve participation. One potential strategy is home-based CR (HBCR). In contrast to center-based CR services, which are provided in a medically supervised facility, HBCR relies on remote coaching with indirect exercise supervision and is provided mostly or entirely outside of the traditional center-based setting. Although HBCR has been successfully deployed in the United Kingdom, Canada, and other countries, most US healthcare organizations have little to no experience with such programs. The purpose of this scientific statement is to identify the core components, efficacy, strengths, limitations, evidence gaps, and research necessary to guide the future delivery of HBCR in the United States. Previous randomized trials have generated low- to moderate-strength evidence that HBCR and center-based CR can achieve similar improvements in 3- to 12-month clinical outcomes. Although HBCR appears to hold promise in expanding the use of CR to eligible patients, additional research and demonstration projects are needed to clarify, strengthen, and extend the HBCR evidence base for key subgroups, including older adults, women, underrepresented minority groups, and other higher-risk and understudied groups. In the interim, we conclude that HBCR may be a reasonable option for selected clinically stable low- to moderate-risk patients who are eligible for CR but cannot attend a traditional center-based CR program.

Background

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on participation in and availability of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is unknown.

Methods

Among eligible Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, we evaluated, by month, the number of CR sessions attended per 100 000 beneficiaries, individuals eligible to initiate CR, and centers offering in-person CR between January 2019 and December 2021. We compared these outcomes between 2 periods: December 1, 2019 through February 28, 2020 (period 1, before declaration of the pandemic-related national emergency) and October 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021 (period 2, the latest period for which data are currently available).

Results

In period 1, Medicare beneficiaries participated in (mean±SD) 895±84 CR sessions per 100 000 beneficiaries each month. After the national emergency was declared, CR participation sharply declined to 56 CR sessions per 100 000 beneficiaries in April 2020. CR participation recovered gradually through December 2021 but remained lower than prepandemic levels (period 2: 698±29 CR sessions per month per 100 000 beneficiaries, P=0.02). Declines in CR participation were most marked among dual Medicare and Medicaid enrollees and patients residing in rural areas or socially vulnerable communities. There was no statistically significant change in CR eligibility between the 2 periods. Compared with 2618±5 CR centers in period 1, there were 2464±7 in period 2 (P<0.01). Compared with CR centers that survived the pandemic, 220 CR centers that closed were more likely to be affiliated with public hospitals, located in rural areas, and serve the most socially vulnerable communities.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a persistent decline in CR participation and the closure of CR centers, which disproportionately affected rural and low-income patients and the most socially vulnerable communities. Innovation in CR financing and delivery is urgently needed to equitably enhance CR participation among Medicare beneficiaries.

Background

Data from a cardiopulmonary exercise (CPX) test are used to determine prognosis in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). However, few published studies have simultaneously compared the relative prognostic strength of multiple CPX variables.

Objectives

The study sought to describe the strength of the association among variables measured during a CPX test and all-cause mortality in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), including the influence of sex and patient effort, as measured by respiratory exchange ratio (RER).

Methods

Among patients (n = 2,100, 29% women) enrolled in the HF-ACTION (HF-A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of exercise traiNing) trial, 10 CPX test variables measured at baseline (e.g., peak oxygen uptake [Vo2], exercise duration, percent predicted peak Vo2 [%ppVo2], ventilatory efficiency) were examined.

Results

Over a median follow-up of 32 months, there were 357 deaths. All CPX variables, except RER, were related to all-cause mortality (all p < 0.0001). Both %ppVo2 and exercise duration were equally able to predict (Wald chi-square: ∼141) and discriminate (c-index: 0.69) mortality. Peak Vo2 (ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)) was the strongest predictor of mortality among men (Wald chi-square: 129) and exercise duration among women (Wald chi-square: 41). Multivariable analyses showed that %ppVo2, exercise duration, and peak Vo2 (ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)) were similarly able to predict and discriminate mortality. In men, a 10% 1-year mortality rate corresponded to a peak Vo2 of 10.9 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1) versus 5.3 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1) in women.

Conclusions

Peak Vo2, exercise duration, and % ppVo2 carried the strongest ability to predict and discriminate the likelihood of death in patients with HFrEF. The prognosis associated with a given peak Vo2 differed by sex. (Exercise Training Program to Improve Clinical Outcomes in Individuals With Congestive Heart Failure; NCT00047437).

Aims

To undertake an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to assess the impact of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) in patients with heart failure (HF) on mortality and hospitalisation, and differential effects of ExCR according to patient characteristics: age, sex, ethnicity, New York Heart Association functional class, ischaemic aetiology, ejection fraction, and exercise capacity.

Methods and results

Randomised trials of exercise training for at least 3 weeks compared with no exercise control with 6-month follow-up or longer, providing IPD time to event on mortality or hospitalisation (all-cause or HF-specific). IPD were combined into a single dataset. We used Cox proportional hazards models to investigate the effect of ExCR and the interactions between ExCR and participant characteristics. We used both two-stage random effects and one-stage fixed effect models. IPD were obtained from 18 trials including 3912 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Compared to control, there was no statistically significant difference in pooled time to event estimates in favour of ExCR although confidence intervals (CIs) were wide [all-cause mortality: hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.67-1.04; HF-specific mortality: HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.49-1.46; all-cause hospitalisation: HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76-1.06; and HF-specific hospitalisation: HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.72-1.35]. No strong evidence was found of differential intervention effects across patient characteristics.

Conclusion

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation did not have a significant effect on the risk of mortality and hospitalisation in HF with reduced ejection fraction. However, uncertainty around effect estimates precludes drawing definitive conclusions.

Background

Previous systematic reviews have indicated that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) for patients with heart failure (HF) has a beneficial effect on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and exercise capacity. However, there is uncertainty regarding potential differential effects of ExCR across HF patient subgroups.

Objectives

The authors sought to undertake an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to: 1) assess the impact of ExCR on HRQoL and exercise capacity in patients with HF; and 2) investigate differential effects of ExCR according to a range of patient characteristics: age, sex, ethnicity, New York Heart Association functional class, ischemic etiology, ejection fraction, and exercise capacity.

Methods

A single dataset was produced, comprising randomized trials where ExCR (delivered for 3 weeks or more) was compared with a no exercise control group. Each trial provided IPD on HRQoL or exercise capacity (or both), with follow-up of 6 months or more. One- and 2-stage meta-analysis models were used to investigate the effect of ExCR overall and the interactions between ExCR and participant characteristics.

Results

IPD was obtained from 13 trials for 3,990 patients, predominantly (97%) with reduced ejection fraction HF. Compared with the control group, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of ExCR for HRQoL and exercise capacity. At 12-month follow-up, improvements were seen in 6-min walk test (mean 21.0 m; 95% confidence interval: 1.57 to 40.4 m; p = 0.034) and Minnesota Living With HF score (mean improvement 5.9; 95% confidence interval: 1.0 to 10.9; p = 0.018). No consistent evidence was found of differential intervention effects across patient subgroups.

Conclusions

These results, based on an IPD meta-analysis of randomized trials, confirm the benefit of ExCR on HRQoL and exercise capacity and support the Class I recommendation of current international clinical guidelines that ExCR should be offered to all HF patients. (Exercise Training for Chronic Heart Failure [ExTraMATCH II]: protocol for an individual participant data meta-analysis; PROSPERO: international database of systematic reviews CRD42014007170).