Pulmonary Rehabilitation Outcomes of Post-Acute COVID-19 Patients during Different Waves of the Pandemic.

(1) Background: Between the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic and summer 2022, we distinguished four pandemic waves, with different characteristics of the affected patients. This study investigated the impact of patient characteristics on the outcome of inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). (2) Methods: Using a prospective approach, the characteristics of post-acute COVID-19 patients of the different waves who participated in inpatient PR were compared based on their assessments and results collected as part of PR (Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), six-minute walk test (6-MWT), Pulmonary Function Testing (PFT), and Functional Independent Measurement (FIM). (3) Results: A total of 483 patients were included in the analysis (Wave 1 n = 51, Wave 2 n = 202, Wave 3 n = 84, Wave 4 n = 146). Compared to Wave 3 + 4, patients of Wave 1 + 2 were older (69 vs. 63 years; p < 0.001), had a significantly lower CIRS (13.0 vs. 14.7 points; p = 0.004), had significant better PFT (FVC: 73 vs. 68%pred; p = 0.009; DLCOSB: 58 ± 18 vs. 50 ± 17%pred; p = 0.001), and showed significantly more comorbidities (2.0 vs. 1.6 n/pers.; p = 0.009). Wave 3 + 4 showed significantly greater improvements according to the 6-MWT (147 vs. 188 m; p < 0.001) and the FIM (5.6 vs. 21.1 points; p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: Patients of the COVID-19 infection waves differed significantly according to their anthropometric data, incidence of comorbidities, and impact of the infection. All cohorts achieved clinically relevant and significant functional improvements during PR, with significant higher improvements in Wave 3 + 4.

Longitudinal Smartphone-Based Post-hospitalisation Symptom Monitoring in SARS-CoV-2 Associated Respiratory Failure: A Multi-Centre Observational Study

Background: We aimed to longitudinally monitor the recovery in breathlessness, symptom burden, health-related quality-of-life, and mental health status in individuals hospitalised due to SARS-CoV-2 associated respiratory failure. Methods: Individuals hospitalised due to SARS-CoV-2 associated respiratory failure were recruited at hospital discharge in three participating centres. During the 90 day follow-up, European Quality of Life−5 Dimensions−5 Levels Instrument (EQ-5D-5L), modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) Dyspnoea Scale, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and weekly Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaires were assessed using a smartphone application. The results were presented using descriptive statistics and graphics. Linear mixed models with random intercept were fitted to analyse differences of intensive-care unit status on the recovery course in each outcome. Results: We included 58 participants, 40 completed the study. From hospital discharge until 90 days post-discharge, EQ-5D-5L index changed from 0.83 (0.66, 0.92) to 0.96 (0.82, 1.0), VAS rating on general health status changed from 62 (50, 75) % to 80 (74, 94) %, CAT changed from 13 (10, 21) to 7 (3, 11) points, mMRC changed from 1 (0, 2) to 0 (0, 1) points, HADS depression subscale changed from 6 (4, 9) to 5 (1, 6) points, HADS anxiety subscale changed from 7 (3, 9) to 2 (1, 8) points. Differences in the recovery courses were observed between intensive-care and ward participants. Participants that were admitted to an intensive-care unit during their hospitalisation (n = 16) showed increases in CAT, mMRC, HADS scores, and decreases in EQ-5D-5L 30 days after hospital discharge. Conclusion: Being admitted to an ICU led to statistically significant reductions in recovery in the EQ-5D-5L and the CAT. Furthermore, the flare-up in symptom burden and depression scores, accompanied by an attenuated recovery in HrQoL and general health status in the ICU-group suggests that a clinical follow-up 1 month after hospital discharge can be recommended, evaluating further treatments. Clinical Trial Registration: [www.ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT04365595].

Clinical and Functional Predictors of Response to a Comprehensive Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Severe Post-COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following severe and very severe COVID-19 infection is known to be effective, according to typical assessments. However, not all patients benefit from PR to the same extent. This analysis aimed to identify the impact of different factors on PR outcomes in post-COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This prospective observational study included 184 post-COVID-19 patients. The achievement of the predicted reference walking distance (6 min walking distance (6-MWD)) served as a parameter with which to identify responders and non-responders to PR. Several parameters (e.g., Functional Independent Measurement (FIM); pulmonary function testing (Forced Vital Capacity, FVC); 6MWD) were assessed in order to estimate their impact on PR success. Logistic regression models and classification and regression trees were used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 94 patients (51%) reached their reference 6MWD by the end of PR. FVC (0.95 (0.93-0.97)), 6MWD at admission (0.99 (0.99-1.00)), and FIM motoric (0.96 (0.93-0.99)) correlated with the risk not reaching the reference distance. The most important variable was the 6MWD at admission. Classification and regression tree identified 6MWD ≥ 130 m at admission and FVC predicted of >83% as the strongest predictor for reaching predicted 6-MWD. CONCLUSION: Post-COVID-19 patients with lower 6MWD, lower motoric FIM scores and lower FVC at admission have a high risk of not reaching their target values of physical performance despite intensive rehabilitation. As well as identifying them, it is of utmost importance to develop optimal PR concepts for these patients.

Effects of a Comprehensive Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Severe Post-COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Severe COVID-19 infection often leads to impairments requiring pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following the acute phase. Little is known about the efficacy of PR in these patients. We therefore compared post-COVID-19 patients (PG) referred to PR patients with other lung diseases (LG). METHODS: 99 PG were admitted to PR. In a prospective design, the results of PG were collected and compared to the results of LG of 2019 (n = 419) according to Functional Independence Measurement (FIM), Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), 6-min walk test (6-MWT), duration of PR, and Feeling Thermometer (FT). RESULTS: According to age, sex, and CIRS, both groups showed no significant differences. The improvements in the 6-MWT in the pre to post comparison were on average 180 (±101) meters for PG and 102 (±89) meters for LG (p < 0.001). FT showed a significant enhancement for PG of 21 (±14) points and for LG of 17 (±16) points (p < 0.039), while FIM significantly increased by 11 (±10) points in PG and 7 (±8) points in LG (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive PR in PG is very effective according to the results in FIM, 6-MWT and FT. Therefore, we recommend PR following severe post-COVID-19 infections.

COVID-19 Outbreak During Inpatient Rehabilitation: Impact on Settings and Clinical Course of Neuromusculoskeletal Rehabilitation Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic affects a large number of patients. The impact on feasibility and outcome of rehabilitation during COVID-19 actually remains unclear. Nosocomial infection of healthcare workers or hospitalized patients is common, and prevention of nosocomial infections during rehabilitation is challenging. Therefore, we analyzed a cohort of nosocomial infected COVID-19 patients in a single-center inpatient rehabilitation clinic and described performance and outcome. DESIGN: The cohort (N = 27) describes patients with nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection while participating in neuromusculoskeletal rehabilitation. Infection was caused by an initially unidentified so-called superspreader. We compared this cohort with all neuromusculoskeletal rehabilitation inpatients of 2019 (comparison group). Normally distributed continuous variables were presented as mean with standard deviation and the t test was used for comparison between groups. Linear regression was used to assess the impact of COVID-19 on Functional Independence Measure at discharge. RESULTS: COVID-19 patients were mostly male (66.7%) with an age of 71.5 ± 12.3 yrs. Age, sex, and cumulated comorbidities of the comparison group (n = 786) were not different from the COVID-19 group. A total of 92.6% of COVID-19 patients had a mild or moderate course, two patients had to be referred to acute hospital because of respiratory failure, and one of these patients died in the acute hospital. After implementation of a strict hygiene concept, no further nosocomial COVID-19 infections were detected. The rehabilitation duration was significantly longer in the COVID-19 group (54.2 ± 23.6 days vs. 32.1 ± 17.7 days, P < 0.001). Daily therapy duration was 132.3 ± 44 mins before SARS-CoV-2 infection and reduced to 81.9 ± 27.3 mins during COVID-19 (P < 0.001). After discontinuation of isolation measures, therapy duration increased significantly (99.3 ± 70.2 mins, P < 0.05).The baseline Functional Independence Measure score was higher in the COVID-19 group (91.93 ± 25.64 points vs. 82.98 ± 22.73 points) and Functional Independence Measure improvements were lower in COVID-19 patients than in the 2019 comparison group (6.96 ± 8.96 points vs. 20.3 ± 15.98 points, P < 0.001). COVID-19 infection itself had a strong negative impact on Functional Independence Measure change as identified by regression analysis. Linear regression analysis showed that COVID-19 reduced the Functional Independence Measure at discharge by 8.9 points (95% CI = -14.725 to -3.097, P = 0.003) after correction for Functional Independence Measure at admission, age, sex, and morbidity index at admission. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a strong negative impact on rehabilitation benefits as assessed by Functional Independence Measure. Neuromusculoskeletal rehabilitation could be continued, but all patients received less therapy minutes during isolation. After implementation of a strict COVID-19-specific hygiene concept, no further infections were detected.

Feasibility and Efficacy of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation After COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic affects a large number of patients with a rapid progression of respiratory failure often requiring hospitalization or intensive care unit treatment in some patients. Survivors of severe COVID-19 experience persistent weakness and cardiorespiratory failure. Feasibility and potential benefit of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation after COVID-19 remains unclear. Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed a cohort of COVID-19 patients in a single-center inpatient rehabilitation clinic and describe performance and outcome during cardiopulmonary rehabilitation.Patients were referred from acute care hospitals for rehabilitation after severe COVID-19. The cohort (N = 28) was divided in ventilated or not ventilated patients for further analysis. Fifty percent were female, the mean age was 66 yrs, and patients stayed in the acute hospital for 19.3 ± 10.7 days before referral for cardiopulmonary rehabilitation. Seventeen patients (61%) needed previous intensive care unit treatment in the acute care hospital. Risk factors, assessments, and questionnaires on admission were comparable in both groups. Significant enhancements were observed in 6-min walking test and feeling thermometer, which were independent of previous ventilation status.In conclusion, comprehensive cardiopulmonary rehabilitation after COVID-19 is safe, feasible, and effective. Improvements in physical performance and subjective health status were independent of previous ventilation.