Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The impact of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation on people with mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A randomised controlled trial.
Lahham, Aroub; McDonald, Christine F; Moore, Rosemary; Cox, Narelle S; Rawlings, Sarah; Nichols, Amanda; Liacos, Athina; Holland, Anne E.
Afiliação
  • Lahham A; Physiotherapy, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
  • McDonald CF; Institute for Breathing and Sleep, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Moore R; Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia.
  • Cox NS; Institute for Breathing and Sleep, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Rawlings S; Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Nichols A; Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Liacos A; Institute for Breathing and Sleep, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Holland AE; Physiotherapy, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Clin Respir J ; 14(4): 335-344, 2020 Apr.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31880078
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

People with mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience exercise intolerance, dyspnoea and poor quality of life. However, the role of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in this group is unclear.

OBJECTIVES:

This randomised controlled trial aimed to explore the effects of home-based PR in people with mild COPD.

METHODS:

People with mild COPD (FEV1 /FVC < 70%; FEV1  > 80%predicted) with a smoking history of ≥10 packet years were randomised to either 8 weeks of home-based PR (one home visit and seven once-weekly telephone calls) or standard care (weekly social telephone calls). Six minute walk distance (6MWD), and Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale (mMRC) and Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) scores were compared.

RESULTS:

A total of 58 participants (34 males, mean age 68 (SD 9) years, FEV1 %predicted 90 (7), 6MWD 496 (105) m) were included with 31 participants randomised to home-based PR. Participants attended an average of 6.8 of the 8 scheduled sessions, ranging from 3 to 8 sessions. Both groups showed improvements in exercise capacity, symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over time, however there was no difference in 6MWD at end-intervention (mean difference -3 m, 95% confidence interval (CI) -64 to 58) or 6 months (7 m, 95% CI -59 to 72). At 6 months home-based PR participants were more likely to have clinically important improvements in CRQ emotional function (50% of home PR vs 0% control, P < 0.001) and CRQ total score (45% vs 17%, P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION:

For people with mild COPD, home-based PR did not improve exercise capacity more than standard care. The trial was registered at the Australia New Zealand clinical trial registry (https//www.anzctr.org.au, Trial ID ACTRN12616000965404).
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Terapia Respiratória / Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica / Serviços de Assistência Domiciliar Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Terapia Respiratória / Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica / Serviços de Assistência Domiciliar Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article