Attitudes of cardiac rehabilitation and stroke teams towards integration of stroke survivors into adapted cardiac rehabilitation: A focus group study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the attitudes and beliefs of cardiac rehabilitation and stroke teams towards adapted cardiac rehabilitation, and the broader topics of exercise, healthy lifestyles and health behaviour change, for people with mild-to-moderate severity stroke in the sub-acute phase of recovery. DESIGN: Qualitative focus group-based study. SETTING: Acute and community national health service trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Stroke and cardiac rehabilitation team members. INTERVENTION: Adapted cardiac rehabilitation. MAIN MEASURES: Focus groups. Thematic analysis was applied to the transcribed data. RESULTS: Overall, 57 health professionals participated in 12 focus groups. Positive impacts for teams and stroke survivors were identified particularly confidence. However, there were negatives, barriers and adaptations identified. In addition, there was a lack of knowledge for cardiac rehabilitation teams in relation to stroke survivors and stroke teams in relation to cardiac rehabilitation, exercise and healthy lifestyles. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac rehabilitation and stroke staff attitudes to cardiac rehabilitation for stroke survivors showed a range of benefits, negatives, barriers and adaptations needed. Confidence and knowledge of the cardiac rehabilitation and stroke teams needs to be addressed. REGISTRATION: ISRCTN65957980.

Personalised Exercise-Rehabilitation FOR people with Multiple long-term conditions (PERFORM): protocol for a randomised feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: Personalised Exercise-Rehabilitation FOR people with Multiple long-term conditions (PERFORM) is a research programme that seeks to develop and evaluate a comprehensive exercise-based rehabilitation intervention designed for people with multimorbidity, the presence of multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs). This paper describes the protocol for a randomised trial to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the PERFORM intervention, study design and processes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, parallel two-group randomised trial with individual 2:1 allocation to the PERFORM exercise-based intervention plus usual care (intervention) or usual care alone (control). The primary outcome of this feasibility trial will be to assess whether prespecified progression criteria (recruitment, retention, intervention adherence) are met to progress to the full randomised trial. The trial will be conducted across three UK sites and 60 people with MLTCs, defined as two or more LTCs, with at least one having evidence of the beneficial effect of exercise. The PERFORM intervention comprises an 8-week (twice a week for 6 weeks and once a week for 2 weeks) supervised rehabilitation programme of personalised exercise training and self-management education delivered by trained healthcare professionals followed by two maintenance sessions. Trial participants will be recruited over a 4.5-month period, and outcomes assessed at baseline (prerandomisation) and 3 months postrandomisation and include health-related quality of life, psychological well-being, symptom burden, frailty, exercise capacity, physical activity, sleep, cognition and serious adverse events. A mixed-methods process evaluation will assess acceptability, feasibility and fidelity of intervention delivery and feasibility of trial processes. An economic evaluation will assess the feasibility of data collection and estimate the costs of the PERFORM intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been given favourable opinion by the West Midlands, Edgbaston Research Ethics Service (Ref: 23/WM/0057). Participants will be asked to give full, written consent to take part by trained researchers. Findings will be disseminated via journals, presentations and targeted communications to clinicians, commissioners, service users and patients and the public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN68786622. PROTOCOL VERSION: 2.0 (16 May 2023).

Changes in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep following pulmonary rehabilitation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The variety of innovations to traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (CBPR), including different modes of delivery and adjuncts, are likely to lead to differential responses in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep. OBJECTIVES: To examine the relative effectiveness of different pulmonary rehabilitation-based interventions on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep. METHODS: Randomised trials in chronic respiratory disease involving pulmonary rehabilitation-based interventions were systematically searched for. Network meta-analyses compared interventions for changes in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep in COPD. RESULTS: 46 studies were included, and analyses were performed on most common outcomes: steps per day (k=24), time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA; k=12) and sedentary time (k=8). There were insufficient data on sleep outcomes (k=3). CBPR resulted in greater steps per day and MVPA and reduced sedentary time compared to usual care. CBPR+physical activity promotion resulted in greater increases in steps per day compared to both usual care and CBPR, with greater increases in MVPA and reductions in sedentary time compared to usual care, but not CBPR. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation resulted in greater increases in steps per day and decreases in sedentary time compared to usual care. Compared to usual care, CBPR+physical activity promotion was the only intervention where the lower 95% confidence interval for steps per day surpassed the minimal important difference. No pulmonary rehabilitation-related intervention resulted in greater increases in MVPA or reductions in sedentary time compared to CBPR. CONCLUSION: The addition of physical activity promotion to pulmonary rehabilitation improves volume of physical activity, but not intensity, compared to CBPR. High risk of bias and low certainty of evidence suggests that these results should be viewed with caution.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: People with heart failure experience substantial disease burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous 2018 Cochrane review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission amongst people with heart failure, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with heart failure with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with heart failure with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in a hospital or centre-based setting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of ExCR on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of adults with heart failure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science without language restriction on 13 December 2021. We also checked the bibliographies of included studies, identified relevant systematic reviews, and two clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ExCR interventions (either exercise only or exercise as part of a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation) with a follow-up of six months or longer versus a no-exercise control (e.g. usual medical care). The study population comprised adults (≥ 18 years) with heart failure - either HFrEF or HFpEF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, mortality due to heart failure, all-cause hospital admissions, heart failure-related hospital admissions, and HRQoL. Secondary outcomes were costs and cost-effectiveness. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 60 trials (8728 participants) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 16 new trials (2945 new participants), in addition to the previously identified 44 trials (5783 existing participants). Although the existing evidence base predominantly includes patients with HFrEF, with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes II and III receiving centre-based ExCR programmes, a growing body of trials includes patients with HFpEF with ExCR undertaken in a home-based setting. All included trials employed a usual care comparator with a formal no-exercise intervention as well as a wide range of active comparators, such as education, psychological intervention, or medical management. The overall risk of bias in the included trials was low or unclear, and we mostly downgraded the certainty of evidence of outcomes upon GRADE assessment. There was no evidence of a difference in the short term (up to 12 months' follow-up) in the pooled risk of all-cause mortality when comparing ExCR versus usual care (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.21; absolute effects 5.0% versus 5.8%; 34 trials, 36 comparisons, 3941 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only a few trials reported information on whether participants died due to heart failure. Participation in ExCR versus usual care likely reduced the risk of all-cause hospital admissions (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; absolute effects 15.9% versus 23.8%; 23 trials, 24 comparisons, 2283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and heart failure-related hospital admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.35; absolute effects 5.6% versus 6.4%; 10 trials; 10 comparisons, 911 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) in the short term. Participation in ExCR likely improved short-term HRQoL as measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLWHF) questionnaire (lower scores indicate better HRQoL and a difference of 5 points or more indicates clinical importance; mean difference (MD) -7.39 points, 95% CI -10.30 to -4.77; 21 trials, 22 comparisons, 2699 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). When pooling HRQoL data measured by any questionnaire/scale, we found that ExCR may improve HRQoL in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (33 trials, 37 comparisons, 4769 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.34; very-low certainty evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent across different models of ExCR delivery: centre- versus home-based, exercise dose, exercise only versus comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone versus aerobic plus resistance programmes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane review provides additional randomised evidence (16 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous 2018 version of the review. Compared to no exercise control, whilst there was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality in people with heart failure, ExCR participation likely reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and heart failure-related hospital admissions, and may result in important improvements in HRQoL. Importantly, this updated review provides additional evidence supporting the use of alternative modes of ExCR delivery, including home-based and digitally-supported programmes. Future ExCR trials need to focus on the recruitment of traditionally less represented heart failure patient groups including older patients, women, and those with HFpEF.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a web-based cardiac rehabilitation programme for people with chronic stable angina: protocol for the ACTIVATE (Angina Controlled Trial Investigating the Value of the 'Activate your heart' Therapeutic E-intervention) randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic stable angina is common and disabling. Cardiac rehabilitation is routinely offered to people following myocardial infarction or revascularisation procedures and has the potential to help people with chronic stable angina. However, there is insufficient evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for its routine use in this patient group. The objectives of this study are to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the 'Activate Your Heart' cardiac rehabilitation programme for people with chronic stable angina compared with usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ACTIVATE is a multicentre, parallel-group, two-arm, superiority, pragmatic randomised controlled trial, with recruitment from primary and secondary care centres in England and Wales and a target sample size of 518 (1:1 allocation; allocation sequence by minimisation programme with built-in random element). The study uses secure web-based allocation concealment. The two treatments will be optimal usual care (control) and optimal usual care plus the 'Activate Your Heart' web-based cardiac rehabilitation programme (intervention). Outcome assessment and statistical analysis will be performed blinded; participants will be unblinded. Outcomes will be measured at baseline and at 6 and 12 months' follow-up. Primary outcome will be the UK version of Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-UK), physical limitations domain at 12 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be the remaining two domains of SAQ-UK, dyspnoea, anxiety and depression, health utility, self-efficacy, physical activity and the incremental shuttle walk test. All safety events will be recorded, and serious adverse events assessed to determine whether they are related to the intervention and expected. Concurrent economic evaluation will be cost-utility analysis from health service perspective. An embedded process evaluation will determine the mechanisms and processes that explain the implementation and impacts of the cardiac rehabilitation programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: North of Scotland National Health Service Research Ethics Committee approval, reference 21/NS/0115. Participants will provide written informed consent. Results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10054455.

Pulmonary Rehabilitation for People With Persistent Symptoms After COVID-19.

TOPIC IMPORTANCE: COVID-19 can cause ongoing and persistent symptoms (such as breathlessness and fatigue) that lead to reduced functional capacity. There are parallels in symptoms and functional limitations in adults with post-COVID symptoms and adults with chronic respiratory diseases. Pulmonary rehabilitation is a key treatment for adults with chronic respiratory diseases, with the aims to improve symptom management and increase functional capacity. Given the similarities in presentation and aims, a pulmonary rehabilitation program may be optimal to meet the needs of those with ongoing symptoms after COVID-19. REVIEW FINDINGS: Aerobic and strength training has shown benefit for adults living with long COVID, although there is little evidence on structured education in this population. Breathing pattern disorder is common in adults with long COVID, and considerations on treatment before rehabilitation, or alongside rehabilitation, are necessary. Considerations on postexertional malaise are important in this population, and evidence from the chronic fatigue syndrome literature supports the need for individualization of exercise programs, and considerations for those who have an adverse reaction to activity and/or exercise. SUMMARY: This narrative review summarizes the current evidence on pulmonary rehabilitation programs in a long-COVID population. Where the evidence is lacking in long COVID the supporting evidence of these programs in chronic respiratory diseases has highlighted the importance of aerobic and strength training, considerations for fatigue, potential mechanisms for immunology improvement, and management of breathing pattern disorders in these programs.

A tailored psychological intervention for anxiety and depression management in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: TANDEM RCT and process evaluation.

Background: People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have high levels of anxiety and depression, which is associated with increased morbidity and poor uptake of effective treatments, such as pulmonary rehabilitation. Cognitive-behavioural therapy improves mental health of people with long-term conditions and could potentially increase uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation, enabling synergies that could enhance the mental health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Aim: Our aim was to develop and evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a tailored cognitive-behavioural approach intervention, which links into, and optimises the benefits of, routine pulmonary rehabilitation. Design: We carried out a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial using a 1.25 : 1 ratio (intervention : control) with a parallel process evaluation, including assessment of fidelity. Setting: Twelve NHS trusts and five Clinical Commissioning Groups in England were recruited into the study. The intervention was delivered in participant's own home or at a local NHS facility, and by telephone. Participants: Between July 2017 and March 2020 we recruited adults with moderate/very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mild/moderate anxiety and/or depression, meeting eligibility criteria for assessment for pulmonary rehabilitation. Carers of participants were invited to participate. Intervention: The cognitive-behavioural approach intervention (i.e. six to eight 40- to 60-minute sessions plus telephone support throughout pulmonary rehabilitation) was delivered by 31 trained respiratory healthcare professionals to participants prior to commencing pulmonary rehabilitation. Usual care included routine pulmonary rehabilitation referral. Main outcome measures: Co-primary outcomes were Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - anxiety and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression at 6 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 6 and 12 months included health-related quality of life, smoking status, uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation and healthcare use. Results: We analysed results from 423 randomised participants (intervention, n = 242; control, n = 181). Forty-three carers participated. Follow-up at 6 and 12 months was 93% and 82%, respectively. Despite good fidelity for intervention delivery, mean between-group differences in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 6 months ruled out clinically important effects (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - anxiety mean difference -0.60, 95% confidence interval -1.40 to 0.21; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression mean difference -0.66, 95% confidence interval -1.39 to 0.07), with similar results at 12 months. There were no between-group differences in any of the secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses did not alter these conclusions. More adverse events were reported for intervention participants than for control participants, but none related to the trial. The intervention did not generate quality-of-life improvements to justify the additional cost (adjusted mean difference £770.24, 95% confidence interval -£27.91 to £1568.39) to the NHS. The intervention was well received and many participants described positive affects on their quality of life. Facilitators highlighted the complexity of participants' lives and considered the intervention to be of potential valuable; however, the intervention would be difficult to integrate within routine clinical services. Our well-powered trial delivered a theoretically designed intervention with good fidelity. The respiratory-experienced facilitators were trained to deliver a low-intensity cognitive-behavioural approach intervention, but high-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy might have been more effective. Our broad inclusion criteria specified objectively assessed anxiety and/or depression, but participants were likely to favour talking therapies. Randomisation was concealed and blinding of outcome assessment was breached in only 15 participants. Conclusions: The tailored cognitive-behavioural approach intervention delivered with fidelity by trained respiratory healthcare professionals to people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Alternative approaches that are integrated with routine long-term condition care are needed to address the unmet, complex clinical and psychosocial needs of this group of patients. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN59537391. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/146/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

People with long-standing lung problems, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, often also have anxiety and depression, which further reduces their quality of life. Two existing treatments could help. Pulmonary rehabilitation (a programme of exercise and education) improves both the physical and mental health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cognitive­behavioural therapy (a talking therapy) may reduce anxiety and depression. The TANDEM [Tailored intervention for Anxiety and Depression Management in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)] intervention linked these two treatments by providing talking therapy based on cognitive­behavioural therapy during the waiting time following referral for pulmonary rehabilitation. The TANDEM treatment was delivered by respiratory healthcare professionals (e.g. nurses or physiotherapists) trained to deliver the talking therapy in six to eight weekly sessions. The sessions were conducted in the participant's home (or another convenient location), with brief telephone support during the pulmonary rehabilitation. Of 423 participants recruited to the study, 242 participants received TANDEM talking therapy and 181 participants received usual care (including a referral to pulmonary rehabilitation). We measured mental health, quality of life, social life, attendance at pulmonary rehabilitation and healthcare use in both groups at 6 and 12 months. Forty-three carers joined the study and we assessed their mental well-being. We interviewed patients, carers and health professionals to find out their views and experience of the TANDEM treatment. We also examined whether or not the TANDEM treatment was good value for money. The TANDEM treatment did not improve the mental or the physical health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In addition, the TANDEM treatment cost the NHS an extra £770 per patient, which was not good value for money. The TANDEM treatment was well received, and many participants told us how it had helped them. Heath-care professionals noted how participants did not just have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but were coping with many physical, mental and social problems. The TANDEM intervention was not effective and, therefore, other strategies will be needed to help people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mental health problems live with their condition.

Evaluation of a COVID-19 fundamental nursing care guideline versus usual care: The COVID-NURSE cluster randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID-19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: Parallel two-arm, cluster-level randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID-19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient-reported co-primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention-to-treat analyses. RESULTS: We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570-572 (98.1%-98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between-group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between-group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co-primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the 'other' ethnicity subgroup. CONCLUSION: We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required. IMPACT: Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care. REPORTING METHOD: CONSORT and CONSERVE. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID-19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings.

Balancing the value and risk of exercise-based therapy post-COVID-19: a narrative review.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to ongoing symptoms such as breathlessness, fatigue and muscle pain, which can have a substantial impact on an individual. Exercise-based rehabilitation programmes have proven beneficial in many long-term conditions that share similar symptoms. These programmes have favourably influenced breathlessness, fatigue and pain, while also increasing functional capacity. Exercise-based rehabilitation may benefit those with ongoing symptoms following COVID-19. However, some precautions may be necessary prior to embarking on an exercise programme. Areas of concern include ongoing complex lung pathologies, such as fibrosis, cardiovascular abnormalities and fatigue, and concerns regarding post-exertional symptom exacerbation. This article addresses these concerns and proposes that an individually prescribed, symptom-titrated exercise-based intervention may be of value to individuals following infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Perspectives of Patients With Chronic Respiratory Diseases and Medical Professionals on Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Pune, India: Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) contribute significantly to morbidity and mortality worldwide and in India. Access to nonpharmacological options, such as pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), are, however, limited. Given the difference between need and availability, exploring PR, specifically remotely delivered PR, in a resource-poor setting, will help inform future work. OBJECTIVE: This study explored the perceptions, experiences, needs, and challenges of patients with CRDs and the potential of and the need for PR from the perspective of patients as well as medical professionals involved in the referral (doctors) and delivery (physiotherapists) of PR. METHODS: In-depth qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted among 20 individuals diagnosed with CRDs and 9 medical professionals. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used as we sought to identify the meanings shared both within and across the 2 participant groups. RESULTS: The 20 patients considered lifestyle choices (smoking and drinking), a lack of physical activity, mental stress, and heredity as the triggering factors for their CRDs. All of them equated the disease with breathlessness and a lack of physical strength, consulting multiple doctors about their physical symptoms. The most commonly cited treatment choice was an inhaler. Most of them believed that yoga and exercise are good self-management strategies, and some were performing yoga postures and breathing exercises, as advised by friends or family members or learned from a televised program or YouTube videos. None of them identified with the term "pulmonary rehabilitation," but many were aware of the exercise component and its benefits. Despite being naive to smartphone technology or having difficulty in reading, most of them were enthusiastic about enrolling in an application-based remotely delivered digital PR program. The 9 medical professionals were, however, reluctant to depend on a PR program delivered entirely online. They recommended that patients with CRDs be supported by their family to use technology, with some time spent with a medical professional during the program. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CRDs in India currently manage their disease with nonguided strategies but are eager to improve and would benefit from a guided PR program to feel better. A home-based PR program, with delivery facilitated by digital solutions, would be welcomed by patients and health care professionals involved in their care, as it would reduce the need for travel, specialist equipment, and setup. However, low digital literacy, low resource availability, and a lack of expertise are of concern to health care professionals. For India, including yoga could be a way of making PR "culturally congruent" and more successful. The digital PR intervention should be flexible to individual patient needs and should be complemented with physical sessions and a feedback mechanism for both practitioners as well as patients for better uptake and adherence.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure - 2023 Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Despite strong evidence, access to exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) remains low across global healthcare systems. We provide a contemporary update of the Cochrane review randomized trial evidence for ExCR for adults with heart failure (HF) and compare different delivery modes: centre-based, home-based (including digital support), and both (hybrid). METHODS AND RESULTS: Databases, bibliographies of previous systematic reviews and included trials, and trials registers were searched with no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials, recruiting adults with HF, assigned to either ExCR or a no-exercise control group, with follow-up of ≥6 months were included. Two review authors independently screened titles for inclusion, extracted trial and patient characteristics, outcome data, and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes of mortality, hospitalization, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were pooled across trials using meta-analysis at short-term (≤12 months) and long-term follow-up (>12 months) and stratified by delivery mode. Sixty trials (8728 participants) were included. In the short term, compared to control, ExCR did not impact all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.21), reduced all-cause hospitalization (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.86, number needed to treat: 13, 95% CI 9-22), and was associated with a clinically important improvement in HRQoL measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHF) overall score (mean difference: -7.39; 95% CI -10.30 to -4.47). Improvements in outcomes with ExCR was seen across centre, home (including digitally supported), and hybrid settings. A similar pattern of results was seen in the long term (mortality: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72-1.04; all-cause hospitalization: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.01, MLWHF: -9.59, 95% CI -17.48 to -1.50). CONCLUSIONS: To improve global suboptimal levels of uptake for HF patients, global healthcare systems need to routinely recommend ExCR and offer a choice of mode of delivery, dependent on an individual patient's level of risk and complexity.

Resistance Training in Post-COVID Recovery: Rationale and Current Evidence.

During hospitalisation with COVID-19, individuals may experience prolonged periods of immobilisation. Combined with the inflammatory effects of the virus, this may lead to a significant reduction in both muscle mass and strength. Data from several long-term studies suggest that these symptoms may not fully resolve within one year. Owing to its effectiveness at inducing muscle fibre hypertrophy and improving neuromuscular efficiency, resistance training is of great interest in the rehabilitation of this population. This narrative review aims to identify the rationale and potential efficacy of resistance training for restoring physical function following infection with SARS-CoV-2, as well as evidence of its use in clinical practice. The studies included in this narrative review consisted mostly of multi-component rehabilitation trials. Of these, widespread improvements in muscle strength were reported using intensities of up to 80% of participants' 1-repetition-maximum. Evidence thus far indicates that resistance training may be safe and effective in patients following COVID-19, although its individual contribution is difficult to discern. Future exercise intervention studies investigating the efficacy of resistance training as a sole modality are needed.

Cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure and atrial fibrillation: a propensity- matched study.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in individuals with heart failure (HF). Individuals with HF and AF may have a reduced functional capacity and quality of life (QoL) which leads to hospital admission and burden on clinical services. Evidence supported the effect of exercise training in individuals with HF. However, there is no existing data on the effectiveness of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in individuals with coexisting HF and AF. AIM: To explore the effect of CR in individuals with HF and AF compared with those with HF and no-coexisting AF. METHODS: Using CR database, individuals with HF and AF were identified and propensity matched to those with no coexisting AF. The change in incremental shuttle walking test, Heart Disease Quality of Life questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scores were compared between groups pre-CR and post-CR. RESULTS: 149 individuals were propensity matched from each group. The mean±SD age of the matched sample was 73.4±8 years, body mass index 29±5.5 kg/m2, left ventricular ejection fraction 35.2±9.8% and 56% were male.A statistically significant improvements in exercise capacity, heart disease QoL, anxiety and depression scores were observed within each group. There were no significant differences between groups for any of these outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with HF and AF gain a similar improvement in exercise capacity and health related QoL outcomes as individuals with no coexisting AF following CR. The presence of AF did not compromise the effectiveness of CR.

Tailored psychological intervention for anxiety or depression in COPD (TANDEM): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The TANDEM multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial evaluated whether a tailored psychological intervention based on a cognitive behavioural approach for people with COPD and symptoms of anxiety and/or depression improved anxiety or depression compared with usual care (control). METHODS: People with COPD and moderate to very severe airways obstruction and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale subscale scores indicating mild to moderate anxiety (HADS-A) and/or depression (HADS-D) were randomised 1.25:1 (242 intervention and 181 control). Respiratory health professionals delivered the intervention face-to-face over 6-8 weeks. Co-primary outcomes were HADS-A and HADS-D measured 6 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 6 and 12 months included: HADS-A and HADS-D (12 months), Beck Depression Inventory II, Beck Anxiety Inventory, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, social engagement, the EuroQol instrument five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), smoking status, completion of pulmonary rehabilitation, and health and social care resource use. RESULTS: The intervention did not improve anxiety (HADS-A mean difference -0.60, 95% CI -1.40-0.21) or depression (HADS-D mean difference -0.66, 95% CI -1.39-0.07) at 6 months. The intervention did not improve any secondary outcomes at either time-point, nor did it influence completion of pulmonary rehabilitation or healthcare resource use. Deaths in the intervention arm (13/242; 5%) exceeded those in the control arm (3/181; 2%), but none were associated with the intervention. Health economic analysis found the intervention highly unlikely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: This trial has shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that this cognitive behavioural intervention delivered by trained and supervised respiratory health professionals does not improve psychological comorbidity in people with advanced COPD and depression or anxiety.

Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Adults with Chronic Respiratory Disease: An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

Background: Despite the known benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for patients with chronic respiratory disease, this treatment is underused. Evidence-based guidelines should lead to greater knowledge of the proven benefits of PR, highlight the role of PR in evidence-based health care, and in turn foster referrals to and more effective delivery of PR for people with chronic respiratory disease. Methods: The multidisciplinary panel formulated six research questions addressing PR for specific patient groups (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], interstitial lung disease, and pulmonary hypertension) and models for PR delivery (telerehabilitation, maintenance PR). Treatment effects were quantified using systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to formulate clinical recommendations. Recommendations: The panel made the following judgments: strong recommendations for PR for adults with stable COPD (moderate-quality evidence) and after hospitalization for COPD exacerbation (moderate-quality evidence), strong recommendation for PR for adults with interstitial lung disease (moderate-quality evidence), conditional recommendation for PR for adults with pulmonary hypertension (low-quality evidence), strong recommendation for offering the choice of center-based PR or telerehabilitation for patients with chronic respiratory disease (moderate-quality evidence), and conditional recommendation for offering either supervised maintenance PR or usual care after initial PR for adults with COPD (low-quality evidence). Conclusions: These guidelines provide the basis for evidence-based delivery of PR for people with chronic respiratory disease.

A typology of healthcare pathways after hospital discharge for adults with COVID-19: the evolution of UK services during pandemic conditions.

Introduction: Over half of post-COVID-hospitalisation adults have persistent symptoms 2 years after discharge, providing a challenge for individuals and healthcare systems. We therefore aimed to describe a typology of UK healthcare pathways post-hospital discharge as a first step towards understanding clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different healthcare pathways. Methods: In 2021, we surveyed hospital sites taking part in the UK Post-hospital COVID-19 (PHOSP-COVID) study. The online survey explored the availability of proactive follow-up, patient selection, involvement of multidisciplinary teams, investigations, assessment and access to mental health and rehabilitation interventions. The typology was defined by a three-stage process: 1) using the survey results to develop a bespoke algorithm to inform a draft classification, 2) a stakeholder event for refinement and 3) finalisation between the Project Advisory Group and research team. The bespoke algorithm was used to map each site onto the classification with further mapping by level of mental health and rehabilitation provision. Results: 70% of hospital sites (45 out of 64) responded to the survey. 82% (37 out of 45) reported delivering a follow-up service after hospital discharge during the first few months of the pandemic. Only 13 out of 37 services (35%) were delivered by permanent staff. The final typology of five categories included no proactive follow-up, and a matrix of four groups based on patient selection (prespecified subgroup/all patients) and complexity of assessment (low/high). The complexity of assessment, rehabilitation and mental health interventions was variable within sites. Discussion: We describe the first typology of post-hospitalisation COVID-19 healthcare pathways to enable modelling of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to inform future policy. Our results highlight the heterogeneity and vulnerability of healthcare services after COVID-19 hospitalisation.

Prevalence of swallow, communication, voice and cognitive compromise following hospitalisation for COVID-19: the PHOSP-COVID analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Identify prevalence of self-reported swallow, communication, voice and cognitive compromise following hospitalisation for COVID-19. DESIGN: Multicentre prospective observational cohort study using questionnaire data at visit 1 (2-7 months post discharge) and visit 2 (10-14 months post discharge) from hospitalised patients in the UK. Lasso logistic regression analysis was undertaken to identify associations. SETTING: 64 UK acute hospital Trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged >18 years, discharged from an admissions unit or ward at a UK hospital with COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported swallow, communication, voice and cognitive compromise. RESULTS: Compromised swallowing post intensive care unit (post-ICU) admission was reported in 20% (188/955); 60% with swallow problems received invasive mechanical ventilation and were more likely to have undergone proning (p=0.039). Voice problems were reported in 34% (319/946) post-ICU admission who were more likely to have received invasive (p<0.001) or non-invasive ventilation (p=0.001) and to have been proned (p<0.001). Communication compromise was reported in 23% (527/2275) univariable analysis identified associations with younger age (p<0.001), female sex (p<0.001), social deprivation (p<0.001) and being a healthcare worker (p=0.010). Cognitive issues were reported by 70% (1598/2275), consistent at both visits, at visit 1 respondents were more likely to have higher baseline comorbidities and at visit 2 were associated with greater social deprivation (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Swallow, communication, voice and cognitive problems were prevalent post hospitalisation for COVID-19, alongside whole system compromise including reduced mobility and overall health scores. Research and testing of rehabilitation interventions are required at pace to explore these issues.

Enabling Adults With Severe Asthma to Exercise: A Qualitative Examination of the Challenges for Patients and Health Care Professionals.

BACKGROUND: Adults living with severe asthma have lower physical activity levels, particularly high-intensity physical activity, compared with their healthy peers. Physical inactivity is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To understand patient and health care professional attitudes toward exercise and physical activity to inform future strategies for the improvement of healthy lifestyle behaviors, including exercise. METHODS: Participants recruited from a specialist difficult asthma service were interviewed individually, and health care professionals (HCPs) from primary care, secondary care, and a tertiary center were invited to attend focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim. We performed thematic analysis on interviews and focus groups separately, followed by an adapted framework analysis to analyze datasets together. RESULTS: Twenty-nine people with severe asthma participated in a semi-structured interview. A total of 51 HCPs took part in eight focus groups across the East Midlands, United Kingdom. Final analysis resulted in three major themes: barriers to exercise and exercise counseling - in which patients and HCPs identified disease and non-disease factors affecting those living with severe asthma; attitudes toward HCP support for exercise - highlighting education needs for HCPs and preference for supervised exercise programs; and areas for system improvement in supporting patients and HCPs - challenges exist across health sectors that limit patient support are described. CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified the important role of HCPs in supporting and advising on lifestyle change. Despite a preference for supervised exercise programs, both patient and HCP barriers existed. To meet patients' varied support needs, improved integration of services is required and HCP skills need extending.