社区肺部康复对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者有效。

Zoe McKeough
{"title":"社区肺部康复对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者有效。","authors":"Zoe McKeough","doi":"10.1016/S0004-9514(09)70013-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Question</h3><p>Does community-based pulmonary rehabilitation improve quality of life, respiratory exacerbations, exercise performance, and lung function in people with COPD?</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Randomised, controlled trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessment.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Two hospitals in The Netherlands.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>People with COPD (GOLD Stages 2 or 3) and impaired exercise capacity (&lt; 70% of predicted peak work during incremental cycle ergometry). Prior rehabilitation and major co-morbidities were exclusion criteria. Randomisation of 199 participants allotted 102 to an intervention group and 97 to a control group.</p></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><p>All participants had their medications optimised before randomisation. Over 4 months, the intervention group visited a local physiotherapist twice a week for 30-minute intensive exercise training (endurance cycling and walking, upper and lower limb strength/endurance exercises). They were instructed to do the exercises for 30 minutes twice daily at home and to walk and cycle outside. They also completed an individualised education program using a booklet and, if required, received smoking cessation counselling (minimal intervention strategy) and 4 visits from a dietitian for counselling and supplements. This was followed by a 20-month maintenance program, involving monthly visits to the physiotherapist for monitoring and encouragement. After an exacerbation, participants were allowed 6 extra training sessions over 3 weeks. Extra dietitian and nursing appointments were made if indicated. The control group participants received brief smoking cessation advice and advice to eat more if malnourished, from their respiratory physician.</p></div><div><h3>Outcome measures</h3><p>The primary outcomes were the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and the number of exacerbations. Secondary outcomes were SGRQ domain scores, the modified Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea scale, a cycle endurance test, the sixminute walk test distance (6MWD), strength of respiratory and limb muscles, fat-free mass, and lung function. At 24 months, perceived effectiveness of care was rated on a 5-point Likert scale.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Follow-up was 93% at 4 months and 79% at 24 months. At 4 months, improvement in SGRQ score was significantly better in the intervention group by 4.2 points (95% CI 3.9 to 4.5), but exacerbations did not significantly differ, RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.79). Other outcomes that were significantly better in the intervention group were SGRQ activity and impact scores, MRC score, cycle endurance time, peak work, 6MWD, handgrip force, and fat-free mass. At 24 months, SGRQ, cycle endurance time, and 6WMD remained significantly better in the intervention group and exacerbations remained not significantly different. The intervention was perceived as significantly more effective.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Communitybased pulmonary rehabilitation is effective for people with COPD.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50086,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Physiotherapy","volume":"55 4","pages":"Page 287"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0004-9514(09)70013-3","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Community-based pulmonary rehabilitation is effective for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)\",\"authors\":\"Zoe McKeough\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S0004-9514(09)70013-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Question</h3><p>Does community-based pulmonary rehabilitation improve quality of life, respiratory exacerbations, exercise performance, and lung function in people with COPD?</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Randomised, controlled trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessment.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Two hospitals in The Netherlands.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>People with COPD (GOLD Stages 2 or 3) and impaired exercise capacity (&lt; 70% of predicted peak work during incremental cycle ergometry). Prior rehabilitation and major co-morbidities were exclusion criteria. Randomisation of 199 participants allotted 102 to an intervention group and 97 to a control group.</p></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><p>All participants had their medications optimised before randomisation. Over 4 months, the intervention group visited a local physiotherapist twice a week for 30-minute intensive exercise training (endurance cycling and walking, upper and lower limb strength/endurance exercises). They were instructed to do the exercises for 30 minutes twice daily at home and to walk and cycle outside. They also completed an individualised education program using a booklet and, if required, received smoking cessation counselling (minimal intervention strategy) and 4 visits from a dietitian for counselling and supplements. This was followed by a 20-month maintenance program, involving monthly visits to the physiotherapist for monitoring and encouragement. After an exacerbation, participants were allowed 6 extra training sessions over 3 weeks. Extra dietitian and nursing appointments were made if indicated. The control group participants received brief smoking cessation advice and advice to eat more if malnourished, from their respiratory physician.</p></div><div><h3>Outcome measures</h3><p>The primary outcomes were the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and the number of exacerbations. Secondary outcomes were SGRQ domain scores, the modified Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea scale, a cycle endurance test, the sixminute walk test distance (6MWD), strength of respiratory and limb muscles, fat-free mass, and lung function. At 24 months, perceived effectiveness of care was rated on a 5-point Likert scale.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Follow-up was 93% at 4 months and 79% at 24 months. At 4 months, improvement in SGRQ score was significantly better in the intervention group by 4.2 points (95% CI 3.9 to 4.5), but exacerbations did not significantly differ, RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.79). Other outcomes that were significantly better in the intervention group were SGRQ activity and impact scores, MRC score, cycle endurance time, peak work, 6MWD, handgrip force, and fat-free mass. At 24 months, SGRQ, cycle endurance time, and 6WMD remained significantly better in the intervention group and exacerbations remained not significantly different. The intervention was perceived as significantly more effective.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Communitybased pulmonary rehabilitation is effective for people with COPD.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50086,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Physiotherapy\",\"volume\":\"55 4\",\"pages\":\"Page 287\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0004-9514(09)70013-3\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Physiotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004951409700133\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004951409700133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

基于社区的肺康复是否能改善COPD患者的生活质量、呼吸恶化、运动表现和肺功能?随机对照试验,隐匿分配和盲法结局评估。荷兰的两家医院。COPD患者(GOLD 2期或3期)和运动能力受损(<增量周期几何法中预测峰值工作的70%)。既往康复和主要合并症是排除标准。199名参与者的随机化,其中102人被分配到干预组,97人被分配到对照组。干预措施在随机化之前,所有参与者的药物都进行了优化。在4个月的时间里,干预组每周两次拜访当地的物理治疗师,进行30分钟的强化运动训练(耐力骑自行车和步行,上肢和下肢力量/耐力训练)。他们被要求每天在家做两次30分钟的锻炼,并在室外散步和骑车。他们还使用一本小册子完成了一个个性化的教育计划,如果需要,他们还接受了戒烟咨询(最小干预策略),并从营养师那里获得了4次咨询和补充。接下来是20个月的维护计划,包括每月去物理治疗师那里进行监测和鼓励。在病情加重后,参与者被允许在3周内进行6次额外的训练。如有需要,还会预约额外的营养师和护理人员。对照组的参与者从他们的呼吸内科医生那里得到了简短的戒烟建议,如果营养不良,建议他们多吃。主要结果为圣乔治呼吸问卷(SGRQ)总分和加重次数。次要结果是SGRQ结构域评分、改良的医学研究委员会(MRC)呼吸困难量表、循环耐力测试、6分钟步行测试距离(6MWD)、呼吸和肢体肌肉力量、无脂量和肺功能。在24个月时,以5分李克特量表对护理的感知有效性进行评分。结果4个月随访93%,24个月随访79%。4个月时,干预组SGRQ评分的改善明显优于干预组4.2分(95% CI 3.9 ~ 4.5),但恶化情况无显著差异,RR为1.01 (95% CI 0.57 ~ 1.79)。干预组显著改善的其他结果包括SGRQ活动和影响评分、MRC评分、循环耐力时间、峰值工作、6MWD、握力和无脂质量。在24个月时,干预组的SGRQ、周期耐力时间和6WMD仍显著优于对照组,恶化情况无显著差异。干预被认为明显更有效。结论以社区为基础的肺康复治疗COPD是有效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Community-based pulmonary rehabilitation is effective for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

Question

Does community-based pulmonary rehabilitation improve quality of life, respiratory exacerbations, exercise performance, and lung function in people with COPD?

Design

Randomised, controlled trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessment.

Setting

Two hospitals in The Netherlands.

Participants

People with COPD (GOLD Stages 2 or 3) and impaired exercise capacity (< 70% of predicted peak work during incremental cycle ergometry). Prior rehabilitation and major co-morbidities were exclusion criteria. Randomisation of 199 participants allotted 102 to an intervention group and 97 to a control group.

Interventions

All participants had their medications optimised before randomisation. Over 4 months, the intervention group visited a local physiotherapist twice a week for 30-minute intensive exercise training (endurance cycling and walking, upper and lower limb strength/endurance exercises). They were instructed to do the exercises for 30 minutes twice daily at home and to walk and cycle outside. They also completed an individualised education program using a booklet and, if required, received smoking cessation counselling (minimal intervention strategy) and 4 visits from a dietitian for counselling and supplements. This was followed by a 20-month maintenance program, involving monthly visits to the physiotherapist for monitoring and encouragement. After an exacerbation, participants were allowed 6 extra training sessions over 3 weeks. Extra dietitian and nursing appointments were made if indicated. The control group participants received brief smoking cessation advice and advice to eat more if malnourished, from their respiratory physician.

Outcome measures

The primary outcomes were the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and the number of exacerbations. Secondary outcomes were SGRQ domain scores, the modified Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea scale, a cycle endurance test, the sixminute walk test distance (6MWD), strength of respiratory and limb muscles, fat-free mass, and lung function. At 24 months, perceived effectiveness of care was rated on a 5-point Likert scale.

Results

Follow-up was 93% at 4 months and 79% at 24 months. At 4 months, improvement in SGRQ score was significantly better in the intervention group by 4.2 points (95% CI 3.9 to 4.5), but exacerbations did not significantly differ, RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.79). Other outcomes that were significantly better in the intervention group were SGRQ activity and impact scores, MRC score, cycle endurance time, peak work, 6MWD, handgrip force, and fat-free mass. At 24 months, SGRQ, cycle endurance time, and 6WMD remained significantly better in the intervention group and exacerbations remained not significantly different. The intervention was perceived as significantly more effective.

Conclusion

Communitybased pulmonary rehabilitation is effective for people with COPD.

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:604180095
Book学术官方微信