家庭设计的慢性阻塞性肺病呼吸康复计划的可行性。

Nidhal Belloumi, Chaima Habouria, Imen Bachouch, Meriem Mersni, Fatma Chermiti, Soraya Fenniche
{"title":"家庭设计的慢性阻塞性肺病呼吸康复计划的可行性。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:根据国际指南,慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的呼吸康复(RR)是标准非药物治疗的基石。目的:评估家庭设计的 RR 计划的可行性,并分析其对呼吸参数和生活质量的中期影响:这是一项前瞻性研究,共有 74 名慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者于 2019 年 1 月入组,并按照书面方案在家中接受与 RR 相关的吸入式支气管扩张剂治疗,为期 16 周。对比统计分析强调了RR前后在临床和功能性呼吸参数以及生活质量(通过简表36(SF-36)问卷进行评估)方面的差异。比较对象包括坚持 RR 的患者和未坚持 RR 的患者:平均年龄为 66.7 ± 8.3 岁,中位数为 67 岁。所有患者均为吸烟者,其中 42 名患者(57%)尚未戒烟。41%的患者病情经常恶化。患者的慢性阻塞性肺病评估测试(CAT)平均得分为 23 分。患者的 BODE 指数平均为 4.11。有 36 名患者(48%)采用了 RR 方案。30名患者(40%)每周至少坚持两次。坚持 RR 的患者的平均 CAT 分数从 23 分降至 14.5 分(P = 0.011)。研究结束时,他们的平均 6-MWD 为 444.6 米,是计算出的理论值的 64.2%。RR 后 FEV1 平均增加 283 毫升。大多数(69%)坚持 RR 的患者被列为四分位 1;BODE 指数≤2。坚持 RR 的患者在 SF-36 问卷中的身体、社会心理和一般方面的平均得分均有所提高:RR是治疗慢性阻塞性肺病的主要非药物疗法。结论:RR 是治疗慢性阻塞性肺病的一种重要的非药物疗法,它的意义在于它的多学科性,因此在多个呼吸参数方面都很有效。我们的研究反映了在没有禁忌症的情况下,家庭设计方案的可行性。我们还强调了在家进行 RR 后对生活质量的积极影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Feasibility of a home-designed respiratory rehabilitation program for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信