Real-life feasibility and effectiveness of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease requiring medical equipment
Received 5 September 2017
Accepted for publication 17 October 2017
Published 12 December 2017 Volume 2017:12 Pages 3549—3556
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Richard Russell
Jérémy B Coquart,1 Olivier Le Rouzic,2 Ghazi Racil,3 Benoit Wallaert,2 Jean-Marie Grosbois4
1CETAPS, EA 3832, UFR STAPS, University of Rouen, Normandie-Univ, Mont Saint Aignan, France; 2Department of Respiratory Diseases, University of Lille, CHRU Lille, Lille, France; 3Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, El Manar University, Tunis, Tunisia; 4FormAction Santé, Pérenchies, France
Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a key treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but studies are still needed to identify the most pertinent criteria to personalize this intervention and improve its efficacy.
Objective: This real-life retrospective study compared the effects of home-based PR on exercise tolerance, anxiety, depression, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in COPD patients, according to their medical equipment.
Methods: Exercise tolerance, anxiety, depression, and HRQoL were evaluated in 109 patients equipped with long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT), 84 patients with noninvasive ventilation (NIV), 25 patients with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and 80 patients with no equipment (NE), before, just after, and 6 and 12 months after PR.
Results: At baseline, the body mass index in the CPAP and NIV groups was higher (p<0.05) than in the other two groups, and the forced expiratory volume in 1 second was lower in the LTOT and NIV groups (p<0.001). All parameters improved after PR in the four groups (p<0.05), but for exercise tolerance, only the 6-minute stepper test showed maintained improvement after 6 and 12 months, whereas the 10 times sit-to-stand and timed up-and-go tests were only improved just after PR. At every time point, exercise tolerance was lower in the LTOT group (p<0.05), with a similar trend in the NIV group.
Conclusion: Despite differences in the medical equipment to treat COPD, home-based PR showed comparable feasibility, safety, and efficacy in all equipment-based groups. Medical equipment should therefore not be a barrier to home-based PR.
Keywords: personalized medicine, noninvasive ventilation, long-term oxygen therapy, continuous positive airway pressure