Effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on exercise capacity in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare strengthening by neuromuscular electrical stimulation versus cycle ergometer training during a pulmonary rehabilitation program, in patients with severe to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. DESIGN: A prospective randomized controlled study. SETTING: Two inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation centers. SUBJECTS: Patients with severe to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and multidimensional index to predict risk of death ≥5, were randomly assigned to receive neuromuscular electrical stimulation or cycle ergometer training during pulmonary rehabilitation. MAIN MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the change in exercise capacity using 1-min sit-to-stand test Secondary endpoints were the changes in exercise capacity using 6-min walk test, quadriceps strength, quality of life and dyspnea. RESULTS: 102 patients were included. After 3 weeks, 47 patients in the neuromuscular electrical stimulation group, and 45 in the cycle ergometer training group were able to be analyzed. No significant difference was seen in the evolution of exercise capacity using 1-min sit-to-stand test (3.3 ± 3.8 and 2.6 ± 4.1) and 6-min walk test (37.8 ± 58.4 and 33.1 ± 46.7), in the evolution of quadriceps strength and endurance (9.2 ± 12.9 and 6.6 ± 16.1; 9.0 ± 13.2 and 6.2 ± 17.0), in the evolution of quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire: -11.3 ± 11.7 and -8.1 ± 11.6; COPD Assessment Test: -5.7 ± 7.1 and -4.7 ± 7.0), or in the evolution of dyspnea using Dyspnea 12 (-5.5 ± 10.2 and -5.9 ± 8.5) except using modified medical research council scale (95% confidence interval: 0.48 [0.05; 0.91], p = 0.027). CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference between the two programs on exercise capacity, quadriceps strength and quality of life.

Effects of inspiratory muscle training on dyspnoea in severe COPD patients during pulmonary rehabilitation: controlled randomised trial.

The benefit of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) combined with a pulmonary rehabilitation programme (PRP) is uncertain. We aimed to demonstrate that, in severe and very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, IMT performed during a PRP is associated with an improvement of dyspnoea.In a single-blind randomised controlled trial, 150 severe or very severe COPD patients were allocated to follow PRP+IMT versus PRP alone. The evaluations were performed at inclusion and after 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the change in dyspnoea using the Multidimensional Dyspnoea Profile questionnaire at the end of a 6-min walk test (6MWT) at 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes were changes in dyspnoea using the Borg (end of the 6MWT) and modified Medical Research Council scales and in functional parameters (maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax), inspiratory capacity, 6MWT and quality of life). All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis.Dyspnoea decreased significantly in both groups; however, the improvement of dyspnoea was not statistically different between the two groups. We only found a statistically significant greater increase of PImax after IMT+PRP than after PRP alone.In this trial including severe or very severe COPD patients, we did not find a significant benefit of IMT during PRP+IMT as compared to PRP alone on dyspnoea, despite a significantly higher improvement of PImax in the IMT group.

Effect of different form of upper limb muscles training on dyspnea in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: In activities involving upper limbs, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) report an increase in dyspnea. For this reason, the authors of the recommendations about pulmonary rehabilitation propose to perform upper limbs muscle strengthening in patients with COPD. However, the modalities of strengthening are not clearly established.The aim of this study is to compare the effects of upper limbs endurance strengthening versus upper limbs force strengthening, in patients with COPD during a pulmonary rehabilitation program. METHODS: This study is a randomized, open-label, bi-center controlled trial in parallel groups distributed in a ratio (1:1) comparing upper limbs force strengthening (group F) to the upper limbs endurance strengthening (group E) during a pulmonary rehabilitation program in patients with COPD stages 2 to 4 (A-D).After randomization, patients will be allocated to follow: A 4 weeks pulmonary rehabilitation program with upper limbs resistance strengthening (group F). A 4 weeks pulmonary rehabilitation program with upper limbs endurance strengthening (group E).The primary outcome is dyspnea measured with the London Chest Activity of daily Living questionnaire. The secondary outcomes are dyspnea (using Modified Medical Research Council dyspnea Scale, dyspnea-12 questionnaire, multidimensional dyspnea profile questionnaire), upper limb exercise capacity (using the 6-minute Peg Board and Ring Test), Maximal voluntary strength of deltoid, biceps, and brachial triceps.The sample size calculated is 140 patients per group, or 280 in total. DISCUSSION: The modalities of upper limb strengthening are not very well known, and evidence based is lacking to recommend endurance or resistance upper limb strengthening.We anticipate that the results of this study will be of relevance to clinical practice. They will bring information about the best modality of upper limb strengthening to use during a pulmonary rehabilitation program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: IdRCB n°2018-A00955-50; V1.1 du 11/07/2018; REHABSUP, clinical trial.gov (NCT03611036), registered August 02, 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03611036.