BACKGROUND: Between 30% and 60% of people who have been infected with COVID-19 still had symptoms 3 months after the start of the disease. Prescribing a pulmonary rehabilitation program in rehabilitation facilities for post COVID-19 patients could help alleviate the symptoms. However, rehabilitation facilities known to provide good quality care to COVID-19 patients and all other patients, could become saturated by the rise in cases. Home-based rehabilitation is a potential solution that could be sustainable in the long term to avoid this saturation and/or a very long waiting list for patients. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate whether home-based rehabilitation would have similar effects compared to inpatient rehabilitation on physical and respiratory variables in post COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: This is a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Pulmonary rehabilitation facility. POPULATION: Seventeen post COVID-19 patients were randomized into two groups: inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (IPR) or home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (HPR). METHODS: The comparison of the two rehabilitation methods relied on questionnaires, physical tests and the evaluation of several respiratory parameters. A 2-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was performed to assess the effects of time (pre- versus post-rehabilitation), group (IPR versus HPR) and their interaction for all parameters. RESULTS: The main result of this study is that distance covered in the 6MWT (6MWD) shows significant improvements, between pre- and postrehabilitation program in both groups (+95 m in IPR group versus +72 m in HPR group, p < 0.001) with no significant interaction between time and group (p = 0.420). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that home-based pulmonary rehabilitation would be as efficient as IPR to decrease physical sequelae in post COVID-19 patients.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help

• PubMed Central
• DOI
• PubMed
• PDF locator
• publisher