Yanping Du, Jun Lin, Xiaoxia Wang, Yan Zhang, Hua Ge, Ye Wang, Zhiyi Ma, Huaping Zhang, Jun Liu, Zhiyong Wang, Meixia Lin, Fayu Ni, Xi Li, Hui Tan, Shifan Tan
{"title":"慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期早期肺康复:随机对照试验荟萃分析","authors":"Yanping Du, Jun Lin, Xiaoxia Wang, Yan Zhang, Hua Ge, Ye Wang, Zhiyi Ma, Huaping Zhang, Jun Liu, Zhiyong Wang, Meixia Lin, Fayu Ni, Xi Li, Hui Tan, Shifan Tan","doi":"10.1080/15412555.2022.2029834","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an essential method for Acute exacerbation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) recovery. We perform a meta-analysis to compare early PR with usual care. A literature search was performed through these databases: PubMed, MEDLINE database, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Embase from inception to July 2021. Eligible trials were clinical randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of early PR and usual care in AECOPD patients. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was FEV1% predicted, 6-min walk test (6MWD), modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) and George Respiratory Questionnaire-total (SGRQ-total). The secondary outcomes were borg dyspnea score, short-form 36 health survey questionnaire physical (SF-36 physical) and SF-36 mental. We included 13 RCTs with a total of 866 patients. There were no significant effects of the PR group on measures of FEV1% predicted (MD = 0.50, 95%CI -1.43 to 2.44, <i>Z</i> = 0.51, <i>p</i> = 0.61), borg dyspnea score (MD = -0.88, 95%CI -1.89 to 0.13, <i>Z</i> = 1.71, <i>p</i> = 0.09) and SF-36 mental (MD = 4.34, 95%CI -1.64 to 10.32, <i>Z</i> = 1.42, <i>p</i> = 0.16) compared with usual care. PR group achieved better 6MWD (MD = 97.58, 95%CI 17.21 to 177.96, <i>Z</i> = 2.38, <i>p</i> = 0.02), mMRC (MD = -0.36, 95%CI -0.52 to -0.21, <i>Z</i> = 4.56, <i>p</i> ˂ 0.00001), SGRQ-total (MD= -9.67, 95%CI -16.23 to -3.11, <i>Z</i> = 2.89, <i>p</i> = 0.004) and SF-36 physical (MD = 4.98, 95%CI 0.60 to 9.35, <i>Z</i> = 2.23, <i>p</i> = 0.03) compared with usual care group. Early PR in AECOPD patients would lead to better 6MWD, mMRC, SGRQ-total and SF-36 physical. But there were no significant effects of the PR group on measures of FEV1% predicted, borg dyspnea score and SF-36 mental.</p>","PeriodicalId":10704,"journal":{"name":"COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","volume":" ","pages":"69-80"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Yanping Du, Jun Lin, Xiaoxia Wang, Yan Zhang, Hua Ge, Ye Wang, Zhiyi Ma, Huaping Zhang, Jun Liu, Zhiyong Wang, Meixia Lin, Fayu Ni, Xi Li, Hui Tan, Shifan Tan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15412555.2022.2029834\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an essential method for Acute exacerbation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) recovery. We perform a meta-analysis to compare early PR with usual care. A literature search was performed through these databases: PubMed, MEDLINE database, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Embase from inception to July 2021. Eligible trials were clinical randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of early PR and usual care in AECOPD patients. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was FEV1% predicted, 6-min walk test (6MWD), modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) and George Respiratory Questionnaire-total (SGRQ-total). The secondary outcomes were borg dyspnea score, short-form 36 health survey questionnaire physical (SF-36 physical) and SF-36 mental. We included 13 RCTs with a total of 866 patients. There were no significant effects of the PR group on measures of FEV1% predicted (MD = 0.50, 95%CI -1.43 to 2.44, <i>Z</i> = 0.51, <i>p</i> = 0.61), borg dyspnea score (MD = -0.88, 95%CI -1.89 to 0.13, <i>Z</i> = 1.71, <i>p</i> = 0.09) and SF-36 mental (MD = 4.34, 95%CI -1.64 to 10.32, <i>Z</i> = 1.42, <i>p</i> = 0.16) compared with usual care. PR group achieved better 6MWD (MD = 97.58, 95%CI 17.21 to 177.96, <i>Z</i> = 2.38, <i>p</i> = 0.02), mMRC (MD = -0.36, 95%CI -0.52 to -0.21, <i>Z</i> = 4.56, <i>p</i> ˂ 0.00001), SGRQ-total (MD= -9.67, 95%CI -16.23 to -3.11, <i>Z</i> = 2.89, <i>p</i> = 0.004) and SF-36 physical (MD = 4.98, 95%CI 0.60 to 9.35, <i>Z</i> = 2.23, <i>p</i> = 0.03) compared with usual care group. Early PR in AECOPD patients would lead to better 6MWD, mMRC, SGRQ-total and SF-36 physical. But there were no significant effects of the PR group on measures of FEV1% predicted, borg dyspnea score and SF-36 mental.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"69-80\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15412555.2022.2029834\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15412555.2022.2029834","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
摘要
肺康复(PR)是慢性阻塞性肺疾病(AECOPD)急性加重期康复的重要手段。我们进行了一项荟萃分析来比较早期PR和常规护理。通过以下数据库进行文献检索:PubMed, MEDLINE数据库,Google Scholar, Cochrane, Embase,从成立到2021年7月。符合条件的试验是临床随机对照试验,比较早期PR和常规护理对AECOPD患者的影响。本荟萃分析的主要终点为预测FEV1%、6分钟步行试验(6MWD)、修改后的医学研究委员会(mMRC)和乔治呼吸问卷总量表(SGRQ-total)。次要指标为borg呼吸困难评分、SF-36身体健康问卷(SF-36身体)和SF-36心理健康问卷。我们纳入了13项随机对照试验,共866例患者。与常规护理相比,PR组在FEV1%预测(MD = 0.50, 95%CI -1.43 ~ 2.44, Z = 0.51, p = 0.61)、borg呼吸困难评分(MD = -0.88, 95%CI -1.89 ~ 0.13, Z = 1.71, p = 0.09)和SF-36精神(MD = 4.34, 95%CI -1.64 ~ 10.32, Z = 1.42, p = 0.16)方面均无显著影响。PR组的6MWD (MD= 97.58, 95%CI为17.21 ~ 177.96,Z = 2.38, p = 0.02)、mMRC (MD= -0.36, 95%CI为-0.52 ~ -0.21,Z = 4.56, p小于0.00001)、SGRQ-total (MD= -9.67, 95%CI为-16.23 ~ -3.11,Z = 2.89, p = 0.004)和SF-36 physical (MD= 4.98, 95%CI为0.60 ~ 9.35,Z = 2.23, p = 0.03)均优于常规护理组。AECOPD患者早期PR可改善6MWD、mMRC、SGRQ-total和SF-36 physical。但PR组在预测FEV1%、borg呼吸困难评分和SF-36精神方面没有显著影响。
Early Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an essential method for Acute exacerbation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) recovery. We perform a meta-analysis to compare early PR with usual care. A literature search was performed through these databases: PubMed, MEDLINE database, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Embase from inception to July 2021. Eligible trials were clinical randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of early PR and usual care in AECOPD patients. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was FEV1% predicted, 6-min walk test (6MWD), modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) and George Respiratory Questionnaire-total (SGRQ-total). The secondary outcomes were borg dyspnea score, short-form 36 health survey questionnaire physical (SF-36 physical) and SF-36 mental. We included 13 RCTs with a total of 866 patients. There were no significant effects of the PR group on measures of FEV1% predicted (MD = 0.50, 95%CI -1.43 to 2.44, Z = 0.51, p = 0.61), borg dyspnea score (MD = -0.88, 95%CI -1.89 to 0.13, Z = 1.71, p = 0.09) and SF-36 mental (MD = 4.34, 95%CI -1.64 to 10.32, Z = 1.42, p = 0.16) compared with usual care. PR group achieved better 6MWD (MD = 97.58, 95%CI 17.21 to 177.96, Z = 2.38, p = 0.02), mMRC (MD = -0.36, 95%CI -0.52 to -0.21, Z = 4.56, p ˂ 0.00001), SGRQ-total (MD= -9.67, 95%CI -16.23 to -3.11, Z = 2.89, p = 0.004) and SF-36 physical (MD = 4.98, 95%CI 0.60 to 9.35, Z = 2.23, p = 0.03) compared with usual care group. Early PR in AECOPD patients would lead to better 6MWD, mMRC, SGRQ-total and SF-36 physical. But there were no significant effects of the PR group on measures of FEV1% predicted, borg dyspnea score and SF-36 mental.
期刊介绍:
From pathophysiology and cell biology to pharmacology and psychosocial impact, COPD: Journal Of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease publishes a wide range of original research, reviews, case studies, and conference proceedings to promote advances in the pathophysiology, diagnosis, management, and control of lung and airway disease and inflammation - providing a unique forum for the discussion, design, and evaluation of more efficient and effective strategies in patient care.