Why the study?
Despite guideline endorsement, cardiac rehabilitation faces implementation challenges including suboptimal referral, poor compliance, and underrepresentation of specific subgroups.
This narrative review highlights the evolving paradigms, multidisciplinary nature, and broad clinical indications of cardiac rehabilitation across the cardiovascular continuum, while emphasizing the need to overcome implementation barriers.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support broader CR integration across CV continuum; leaves open optimal design in specific populations.
Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a central component of optimized secondary prevention. Since their inception, CR programmes have progressively evolved. These incorporate several components in a multidisciplinary setting, aimed at addressing the diverse needs of the complex cardiovascular patient. From ischaemic heart disease to heart failure and cardio-oncology, CR has shown its relevance across various moments of the cardiovascular continuum. Notably, data has underscored the importance of an individualized assessment coupled to programme tailoring according to patient characteristics, to harness the full benefits of CR while ensuring safety. Against this background, current guidelines have endorsed CR in different clinical settings. Despite this, several challenges concerning CR implementation remain, including suboptimal referral and compliance rates, as well as underrepresentation of specific patient subgroups. In this article, we provide an overview concerning current paradigms for CR in contemporary clinical practice, while also exploring novel developments and future perspectives on this pivotal field.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vilela et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: