P2513Offer and participation in different European cardiac rehabilitation programs in the elderly after ACS or coronary revascularization. The EU-CaRE study

Abstract

Abstract Background Cardiac rehabilitation programs (CRP) are strongly recommended after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or coronary revascularization (PCI or CABG), but actual offer and participation among elderly patients (age ≥65) have not been well characterised. Purpose To analyse current offer and participation rates in different European CRP in elderly patients. Methods Data from elderly patients recruited for CRP, after ACS, PCI or CABG, in centres from seven European countries participating in the EU-CaRE study (NTR5306), were analysed. Results 3471 patients were screened, of whom 80.9% (n=2806) were offered participation and 68.0% of these (n=1908) agreed to participate in a CRP. Outpatient CRP were offered to 73–92% of screened patients. Among reasons for not offering the program were contraindications and geographical conditions. Patients who were not offered were mainly older, with worse cardiovascular risk profile and comorbidities. In the multivariable analysis main variables related with offering in Copenhagen were age (OR=0.92, CI95% 0.87–0.98), gender (male, OR=2.42, CI95% 1.10–5.31) and previous CABG (OR=0.12, CI95% 0.04–0.36). In Bern, age (OR=0.89, CI95% 0.85–0.93), ACS (OR=1.85, CI95% 1.01–3.54) and smoking status (OR=0.47, CI95% 0.24–0.93). In Zwolle, age (OR=0.89, CI95% 0.91–0.97), CABG (OR=4.34, CI95% 1.37->10), smoking status (OR=0.23, CI95% 0.06–1.11), diabetes mellitus (OR=0.33, CI95% 0.13–0.91) and comorbidities (i.e. obstructive pulmonary disease). In Santiago, age (OR=0.83, CI95% 0.73–0.91), index event PCI (OR=14.21, CI95% 3.68->10) and rheumatoid arthritis. The ratio of participation among those who were offered the program varied from 46% to 94% (46% to 67% in outpatients' programs). Main reasons for not participating were patients considered that it was not useful (366, 10.5%), travel distance (205, 5.8%), transport difficulties (134, 3.8%) and exercises on own initiative (70, 2.0%). In a center-specific analysis we performed predictive models of participation. In Copenhagen (AUC=0.69) the main variables predicting participation were age (OR=0.99, CI95% 0.96–1.03), not living alone (OR=1.53, CI95% 0.96–2.42), CABG (OR=2.69, CI95% 1.51–4.80) and comorbidities. In Bern (AUC=0.81), age (OR=0.92, CI95% 0.89–0.95), ACS (OR=3.99, CI95% 2.56–6.20) and peripheral artery disease. In Zwolle (AUC=0.71), age (OR=0.94, CI95% 0.91–0.98), employment status (OR=0.28, CI95% 0.13–0.60), CABG (OR=3.62, CI95% 2.28–5.77) and previous ACS (OR=0.58, CI95% 0.35–0.95). In Santiago (AUC=0.85), age (OR=0.95, CI95% 0.90–0.99), rural habitat (OR=0.58, CI95% 0.32–1.04), valvulopathy (OR=0.33, CI95% 0.14–0.79) and the index intervention PCI. Conclusions Knowing reasons (travel distance, usefulness of the program understood by patient) and variables (age, living alone or in rural area) that determine if CRP is offered and whether or not patients participate will help redesign CRP to better adapt to actual needs of an elderly European population. Acknowledgement/Funding This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 634439