Effect of a Ventilatory Assist Device in Addition to Supplemental Oxygen on Exercise Endurance in Subjects With COPD.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the clinical effects of a ventilatory assist (VA) device in addition to supplemental O2 (VA+O2) on exercise endurance in subjects with severe to very severe COPD managed with long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT). METHODS: This was a crossover clinical feasibility study of the effects of VA+O2 in subjects with severe to very severe COPD managed with LTOT (N = 15). At visit 1, physiologic measures were obtained, and subjects were tested on the cycle ergometer with VA. Peak work rate and flow for continuous supplemental O2/VA+O2 were established. At visit 2, subjects exercised at a constant work rate of 80% peak work rate to maximum endurance after allocation to VA+O2 or O2. Cardiorespiratory variables, work rate, and dyspnea were included to define potential clinical benefits of VA+O2. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Fifteen subjects with COPD (mean ± SD, age 67.9 ± 9.0 y, FEV1 0.89 ± 0.35 observed) completed the study. Exercise duration in minutes was significantly longer with VA+O2 versus O2 (least squares mean [standard error], 12.0 [2.0] vs 6.2 [2.0], P = .01). VA+O2 versus O2 was also associated with significantly greater isotime improvements in Borg dyspnea scores (3.6 [0.5] vs 5.7 [0.5], P < .001), SpO2 (96.9 [0.9] vs 91.4 [0.9], P < .001), leg fatigue scores (3.8 [0.6] vs 5.2 [0.6], P = .008), and breathing frequency (22.8 [0.9] vs 25.8 [0.9] breaths/min, P = .01). There were no differences in heart rate. CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic subjects with severe to very severe COPD, VA+O2 significantly increased exercise time and improved dyspnea, SpO2 , breathing frequency, and leg fatigue versus O2 alone.

Additional Evidence for the Long-Term Benefits of Pulmonary Rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation programs document outcomes to prepare for program certification, to demonstrate the value of the program to upper management, and to provide feedback to pulmonary rehabilitation staff regarding the efficacy of the program. The overall goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using non-research-generated clinical data to report long-term outcomes following a pulmonary rehabilitation program. METHODS: Using a longitudinal descriptive design, all subjects who completed pulmonary rehabilitation at one community-based pulmonary rehabilitation program in the San Francisco Bay Area were asked to complete a 6-month and subsequent yearly questionnaires. Adherence to pulmonary rehabilitation techniques was described for 7 y following pulmonary rehabilitation participation, health-care utilization from 1 y before pulmonary rehabilitation was compared with subsequent years, and health-care utilization was compared between those who participated in ongoing regular exercise after pulmonary rehabilitation and those who did not exercise. RESULTS: More than 70% of subjects who completed the questionnaire reported adherence to pulmonary rehabilitation techniques, including exercise for at least 7 y following pulmonary rehabilitation. Health-care utilization declined after pulmonary rehabilitation. Subjects who did not exercise regularly required significantly more health care than those who exercised regularly (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the ability of one pulmonary rehabilitation program to accurately monitor extended long-term follow-up after pulmonary rehabilitation. Implementing this long-term monitoring methodology consistently in pulmonary rehabilitation programs could contribute to evaluation of the comparative effectiveness of various treatment options.

Pulmonary rehabilitation improves long-term outcomes in interstitial lung disease: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation improves outcomes in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD), however it is unclear whether these effects are long lasting and which patients benefit most. METHODS: Patients with ILD were recruited into this prospective cohort study from three pulmonary rehabilitation programs. Patients completed functional assessments (6-minute walk distance (6MWD), and 4-meter walk time) and surveys (quality of life, dyspnea, depression, and physical activity) before rehabilitation, after rehabilitation, and at six months. Changes from baseline were compared using a paired t-test. Independent predictors of change in 6MWD and quality of life were determined using multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were recruited (22 with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), 50 patients (93%) completed the rehabilitation program, and 39 returned for six-month follow-up. 6MWD improved 57.6 m immediately after rehabilitation (95% confidence interval (CI) 40.2-75.1 m, p < 0.0005), and remained 49.8 m above baseline at six months (95%CI 15.0-84.6 m, p = 0.005). The majority of patients achieved the minimum clinically important difference for quality of life (51%), dyspnea (65%), and depression score (52%) immediately after rehabilitation, and improvements were still significant at 6-month follow-up for quality of life, depression, and physical activity. A low baseline 6MWD was the only independent predictor of improvement in 6MWD during rehabilitation (r = -0.49, p < 0.0005). Change in 6MWD was an independent predictor of change in quality of life (r = -0.36, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary rehabilitation improved multiple short- and long-term outcomes in patients with ILD. While all patients appear to benefit, ILD patients with a low baseline 6MWD had greater benefit from rehabilitation. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01055730 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Pulmonary rehabilitation in interstitial lung disease: benefits and predictors of response.

BACKGROUND: Data examining the role of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in interstitial lung disease (ILD) are limited. We tested the hypothesis that PR can improve functional status and dyspnea in a large group of patients with ILD, and that certain baseline patient variables can predict this improvement. METHODS: Data from patients who were referred to PR with a diagnosis of ILD were included. Baseline and post-PR variables were recorded, and changes in 6-min walk test (6MWT) distance and dyspnea were evaluated. The impact of baseline variables on change in 6MWT distance and dyspnea were analyzed. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference was seen in both the change in Borg score and 6MWT distance after PR (p < 0.0001). These changes were consistent with previously established clinically significant differences. Baseline 6MWT distance was a significant predictor of change in 6MWT distance (p < 0.0001), with increasing baseline 6MWT distance predicting a smaller improvement after PR. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that PR should be considered as a standard of care for patients with ILD.