Phase II Cardiac Rehabilitation Under Compulsory Insurance in Kazakhstan: A Five-Year Cohort Analysis of Clinical and Economic Outcomes

Yelena Sergeyeva, Lyudmila Sergeevna Yermukhanova, Ardak N. Nurbakyt, Gulnara L. Kurmanalina, Dariusz Walkowiak, Maral G. Nogayeva, Alireza Afshar

2025

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3390/jcm14176317
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Background/Aim of Study: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) plays a pivotal role in the recovery of post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients. Despite evidence supporting its clinical benefits, CR remains underutilized, especially in middle-income countries like Kazakhstan. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and economic impact of phase II CR among patients with AMI treated at the Almaty City Cardiology Center between 2018 and 2022. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from 2672 AMI patients. Two cohorts were compared: those who participated in phase II CR and those who did not. Primary outcomes included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), rehospitalization rates, and return to active work. Results: Economic outcomes involved direct medical costs related to initial hospitalization and follow-up care. CR participants showed significant improvements in LVEF (53.7% vs. 49.0% in non-CR patients, p < 0.001). Despite these clinical benefits, there was no significant reduction in long-term treatment costs between the CR and non-CR groups. CR users had slightly higher initial treatment costs but similar cumulative costs for subsequent treatments over two years. Importantly, government funding limitations were found to hinder the full effectiveness of CR programs in Kazakhstan. Conclusions: Phase II CR improves cardiac function in AMI patients but does not reduce long-term treatment costs. The current insufficient government funding for CR limits its broader impact. Expanding CR services and increasing funding are essential to maximize its benefits within Kazakhstan’s healthcare system.