Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
| Pulmonary rehabilitation after acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in patients who previously completed a pulmonary rehabilitation program |
| Carr SJ, Hill K, Brooks D, Goldstein RS |
| Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention 2009 Sep-Oct;29(5):318-324 |
| clinical trial |
| 5/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: No; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
|
PURPOSE: Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) impair health-related quality of life (HRQL). We evaluated the effect of an abbreviated repeat pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) program on HRQL after an AECOPD. METHODS: Patients who had completed PR were followed for up to 12 months to identify an AECOPD and then placed in randomized groups to receive a 3-week repeat-PR intervention or usual care. Measures of HRQL (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire, CRQ) and functional exercise capacity (6-minute walk distance, 6MWD) were collected at 2 (T1), 5 (T2), and 12 weeks (T3) post-AECOPD. The repeat-PR program was undertaken between T1 and T2. Between-group differences were examined using repeated- measures analysis of variance or covariance. RESULTS: Of the 60 patients (30 men, age 69 +/- 8 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 second 0.86 +/- 0.40 L, 6MWD 367 +/- 99 m) followed, 41 experienced an AECOPD 14 +/- 11 weeks after completion of the initial PR program and 33 completed the study. Of these, 16 and 17 were randomized to the intervention and control groups, respectively. No between-group differences were demonstrated at T2 or T3. With the exclusion of 5 subjects who experienced a second AECOPD between T1 and T3, the participants in the intervention group demonstrated greater reduction in dyspnea when compared to those in the control group at T3 (0.8 +/- 1.6 versus -0.4 +/- 1.3 points per item, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The reduction in dyspnea in those who did not experience a second AECOPD provides preliminary evidence for the role of repeat programs. The application of repeat PR should be refined in larger trials.
|