{"title":"Feasibility of a home-designed respiratory rehabilitation program for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.","authors":"Nidhal Belloumi, Chaima Habouria, Imen Bachouch, Meriem Mersni, Fatma Chermiti, Soraya Fenniche","doi":"10.1017/S1463423623000324","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>According to international guidelines, respiratory rehabilitation (RR) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a cornerstone of standard non-pharmacological treatment.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To evaluate feasibility of a home-designed RR program and analyze its medium-term impact on respiratory parameters and quality of life.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective study involving 74 COPD patients enrolled in January 2019 and put on inhaled bronchodilator treatment associated with RR at home following a written protocol, for 16 weeks. The comparative statistical analysis highlights the difference before and after RR in terms of clinical and functional respiratory parameters as well as in terms of quality of life (assessed on the short form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire). The comparison involves RR-adherent patients versus non-adherent patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean age was 66.7 ± 8.3 years with a median of 67 years. All patients were smokers, out of which 42 patients (57%) did not quit yet. Forty-one percent of patients were frequent exacerbators. The average COPD assessment test (CAT) score in our patients was 23. The average 6-minutes walk distance (MWD) was 304 m. The BODE index in our patients was 4.11 on average. The RR program was followed by 36 patients (48%). Thirty patients (40%) applied it at least twice a week. RR-adherent patients had an average CAT score decreasing from 23 to 14.5 (<i>P</i> = 0.011). Their average 6-MWD was 444.6 m by the end of the study, which would be 64.2% of the calculated theoretical value. The average FEV1 increase after RR was 283 mL. The majority (69%) of RR-adherent patients were ranked as quartile 1; BODE index ≤2. The average scores of physical, psycho-social, and general dimensions assessed on the SF-36 questionnaire improved in RR-adherent patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RR is a key non-pharmacological treatment for COPD. Its interest originates from its multidisciplinary nature, hence its effectiveness in several respiratory parameters. Our study reflects the feasibility of home-designed protocols in the absence of contraindications. We highlight also the positive impact on quality of life after RR at home.</p>","PeriodicalId":74493,"journal":{"name":"Primary health care research & development","volume":"25 ","pages":"e7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10894720/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary health care research & development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423623000324","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: According to international guidelines, respiratory rehabilitation (RR) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a cornerstone of standard non-pharmacological treatment.
Aims: To evaluate feasibility of a home-designed RR program and analyze its medium-term impact on respiratory parameters and quality of life.
Methods: This was a prospective study involving 74 COPD patients enrolled in January 2019 and put on inhaled bronchodilator treatment associated with RR at home following a written protocol, for 16 weeks. The comparative statistical analysis highlights the difference before and after RR in terms of clinical and functional respiratory parameters as well as in terms of quality of life (assessed on the short form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire). The comparison involves RR-adherent patients versus non-adherent patients.
Results: Mean age was 66.7 ± 8.3 years with a median of 67 years. All patients were smokers, out of which 42 patients (57%) did not quit yet. Forty-one percent of patients were frequent exacerbators. The average COPD assessment test (CAT) score in our patients was 23. The average 6-minutes walk distance (MWD) was 304 m. The BODE index in our patients was 4.11 on average. The RR program was followed by 36 patients (48%). Thirty patients (40%) applied it at least twice a week. RR-adherent patients had an average CAT score decreasing from 23 to 14.5 (P = 0.011). Their average 6-MWD was 444.6 m by the end of the study, which would be 64.2% of the calculated theoretical value. The average FEV1 increase after RR was 283 mL. The majority (69%) of RR-adherent patients were ranked as quartile 1; BODE index ≤2. The average scores of physical, psycho-social, and general dimensions assessed on the SF-36 questionnaire improved in RR-adherent patients.
Conclusions: RR is a key non-pharmacological treatment for COPD. Its interest originates from its multidisciplinary nature, hence its effectiveness in several respiratory parameters. Our study reflects the feasibility of home-designed protocols in the absence of contraindications. We highlight also the positive impact on quality of life after RR at home.