Relationships between Domain-specific Cognitive Function, Functional Performance and Life Satisfaction in Persons with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)

ABSTRACT Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a major cause of disability. Not only does COPD cause breathing difficulties, there are extrapulmonary effects including cognition with domain-specific cognition as our primary focus. Evidence suggests that COPD has negative effects on domain-specific cognition which may be related to declines in functional performance and life satisfaction. This three-paper dissertation includes a) a meta-analysis summarizing the effect size of changes in domain-specific cognition, b) a secondary analysis of the HRS data set examining longitudinal changes in domain-specific cognition in persons with and without COPD and c) a pilot study examining feasibility and acceptability computerized adaptive testing CAT) in persons with COPD and describing a preliminary relationship between domain-specific cognition, functional performance and life satisfaction. In the meta-analysis, differences indicated that persons with COPD had poorer performance than persons without COPD. No difference was found between the groups in the domains of executive function measured with verbal fluency animal or language measured with Boston Naming. A small effect size was found in memory and learning measured with Digit Span Forward (-0.298, 95% CI [ -0.480 - -0.114], p < 0.001) and executive function measured with Digit Span Backward (-0.352, 95% CI [-0.105 - -2.80], p < 0.001). Moderate effect sizes were found in attention measured with Trailmaking Test A (TMT-A) (-0.516, 95% CI [ -0.747 – -0.286], p < 0.001), in memory and learning measured with Wechsler Memory Scale immediate recall (-0.6, 95% CI [-0.480 – -0.114], p < 0.001) and delayed recall (-0.420, 95% CI [-0.610 – - 0.231], p < 0.001); in executive function measured with Trailmaking Test B (TMT-B) (-0.571, 95% CI [- 0.769 - - 0.374], p < 0.001) and large effect sizes were found in executive function measured with verbal letter fluency (-0.746, 95% CI [- 0.961 - - 0.530], p < 0.001) and processing speed measured with digit symbol (-0.923, 95% CI [ -0.769 - -0.374], p < 0.001). In the secondary data analysis, persons with COPD had significantly poorer performance in executive function and memory and learning. Both groups had significant declines over time, wiht a steeper decline immediate recall in the non-COPD group. In cross-sectional analysis, persons with COPD, no significant relationships between the cognitive domains and life satisfaction to mediate. In the non-COPD group, there was a relationship between delayed recall and life satisfaction that was fully mediated by activities of functional performance. Hopelessness explained a significant portion of the variance in cognition in both groups. Semipartial in the COPD group, hopelessness uniquely contributed to immediate recall (7%) and delayed recall (9%) and explained very little in the non-COPD group (<1%). Finally, a pilot study examined feasibility and acceptability of computer adaptive testing (CAT) in COPD. On a scale of 0 - 5, the CAT had a 4.3 overall impression indicating acceptability. Only processing speed approached the level of significance with 47.5% of persons below norm. Findings suggest that persons with COPD have domain-specific cognitive deficits that are greater than those occurring in normal aging.PHDNursingUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144091/1/jagrider_1.pd

High-flow nasal cannulae for respiratory support in adult intensive care patients

Background High-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) deliver high flows of blended humidified air and oxygen via wide-bore nasal cannulae and may be useful in providing respiratory support for adult patients experiencing acute respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU). Objectives We evaluated studies that included participants 16 years of age and older who were admitted to the ICU and required treatment with HFNC. We assessed the safety and efficacy of HFNC compared with comparator interventions in terms of treatment failure, mortality, adverse events, duration of respiratory support, hospital and ICU length of stay, respiratory effects, patient-reported outcomes, and costs of treatment. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Web of Science, proceedings from four conferences, and clinical trials registries; and we handsearched reference lists of relevant studies. We conducted searches from January 2000 to March 2016 and reran the searches in December 2016. We added four new studies of potential interest to a list of ‘Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate them into formal review findings during the review update. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled studies with a parallel or cross-over design comparing HFNC use in adult ICU patients versus other forms of non-invasive respiratory support (low-flow oxygen via nasal cannulae or mask, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP)). Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Main results We included 11 studies with 1972 participants. Participants in six studies had respiratory failure, and in five studies required oxygen therapy after extubation. Ten studies compared HFNC versus low-flow oxygen devices; one of these also compared HFNC versus CPAP, and another compared HFNC versus BiPAP alone. Most studies reported randomization and allocation concealment inadequately and provided inconsistent details of outcome assessor blinding. We did not combine data for CPAP and BiPAP comparisons with data for low-flow oxygen devices; study data were insufficient for separate analysis of CPAP and BiPAP for most outcomes. For the primary outcomes of treatment failure (1066 participants; six studies) and mortality (755 participants; three studies), investigators found no differences between HFNC and low-flow oxygen therapies (risk ratio (RR), Mantel-Haenszel (MH), random-effects 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.27; and RR, MH, random-effects 0.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.06, respectively). We used the GRADE approach to downgrade the certainty of this evidence to low because of study risks of bias and different participant indications. Reported adverse events included nosocomial pneumonia, oxygen desaturation, visits to general practitioner for respiratory complications, pneumothorax, acute pseudo-obstruction, cardiac dysrhythmia, septic shock, and cardiorespiratory arrest. However, single studies reported adverse events, and we could not combine these findings; one study reported fewer episodes of oxygen desaturation with HFNC but no differences in all other reported adverse events. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for adverse events to low because of limited data. Researchers noted no differences in ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD), inverse variance (IV), random-effects 0.15, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.34; four studies; 770 participants), and we downgraded quality to low because of study risks of bias and different participant indications. We found no differences in oxygenation variables: partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) (MD, IV, random-effects 7.31, 95% CI -23.69 to 41.31; four studies; 510 participants); PaO2 (MD, IV, random-effects 2.79, 95% CI -5.47 to 11.05; three studies; 355 participants); and oxygen saturation (SpO2) up to 24 hours (MD, IV, random-effects 0.72, 95% CI -0.73 to 2.17; four studies; 512 participants). Data from two studies showed that oxygen saturation measured after 24 hours was improved among those treated with HFNC (MD, IV, random-effects 1.28, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.55; 445 participants), but this difference was small and was not clinically significant. Along with concern about risks of bias and differences in participant indications, review authors noted a high level of unexplained statistical heterogeneity in oxygenation effect estimates, and we downgraded the quality of evidence to very low. Meta-analysis of three comparable studies showed no differences in carbon dioxide clearance among those treated with HFNC (MD, IV, random-effects -0.75, 95% CI -2.04 to 0.55; three studies; 590 participants). Two studies reported no differences in atelectasis; we did not combine these findings. Data from six studies (867 participants) comparing HFNC versus low-flow oxygen showed no differences in respiratory rates up to 24 hours according to type of oxygen delivery device (MD, IV, random-effects -1.51, 95% CI -3.36 to 0.35), and no difference after 24 hours (MD, IV, random-effects -2.71, 95% CI -7.12 to 1.70; two studies; 445 participants). Improvement in respiratory rates when HFNC was compared with CPAP or BiPAP was not clinically important (MD, IV, random-effects -0.89, 95% CI -1.74 to -0.05; two studies; 834 participants). Results showed no differences in patient-reported measures of comfort according to oxygen delivery devices in the short term (MD, IV, random-effects 0.14, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.93; three studies; 462 participants) and in the long term (MD, IV, random-effects -0.36, 95% CI -3.70 to 2.98; two studies; 445 participants); we downgraded the certainty of this evidence to low. Six studies measured dyspnoea on incomparable scales, yielding inconsistent study data. No study in this review provided data on positive end-expiratory pressure measured at the pharyngeal level, work of breathing, or cost comparisons of treatment. Authors' conclusions We were unable to demonstrate whether HFNC was a more effective or safe oxygen delivery device compared with other oxygenation devices in adult ICU patients. Meta-analysis could be performed for few studies for each outcome, and data for comparisons with CPAP or BiPAP were very limited. In addition, we identified some risks of bias among included studies, differences in patient groups, and high levels of statistical heterogeneity for some outcomes, leading to uncertainty regarding the results of our analysis. Consequently, evidence is insufficient to show whether HFNC provides safe and efficacious respiratory support for adult ICU patients

A crossover study of short burst oxygen therapy (SBOT) for the relief of exercise-induced breathlessness in severe COPD

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Previous small studies suggested SBOT may be ineffective in relieving breathlessness after exercise in COPD.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>34 COPD patients with FEV1 <40% predicted and resting oxygen saturation ≥93% undertook an exercise step test 4 times. After exercise, patients were given 4 l/min of oxygen from a simple face mask, 4 l/min air from a face mask (single blind), air from a fan or no intervention.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Average oxygen saturation fell from 95.0% to 91.3% after exercise. The mean time to subjective recovery was 3.3 minutes with no difference between treatments. The mean Borg breathlessness score was 1.5/10 at rest, rising to 5.1/10 at the end of exercise (No breathlessness = 0, worst possible breathlessness = 10). Oxygen therapy had no discernable effect on Borg scores even for 14 patients who desaturated below 90%. 15 patients had no preferred treatment, 7 preferred oxygen, 6 preferred the fan, 3 preferred air via a mask and 3 preferred room air.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study provides no support for the idea that COPD patients who are not hypoxaemic at rest derive noticeable benefit from oxygen therapy after exercise. Use of air from a mask or from a fan had no apparent physiological or placebo effect.</p

Symptomatic oxygen for non-hypoxaemic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Dyspnoea is a common symptom in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). People who are hypoxaemic may be given long-term oxygen relief therapy (LTOT) to improve their life expectancy and quality of life. However, the symptomatic benefit of home oxygen therapy in mildly or non-hypoxaemic people with COPD with dyspnoea who do not meet international funding criteria for LTOT (PaO(2)< 55 mmHg or other special cases) is unknown. To determine the efficacy of oxygen versus medical air for relief of subjective dyspnoea in mildly or non-hypoxaemic people with COPD who would not otherwise qualify for home oxygen therapy. The main outcome was patient-reported dyspnoea and secondary outcome was exercise tolerance. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE, to November 2009, to identify randomised controlled trials. We handsearched reference lists of included articles. We only included randomised controlled trials of oxygen versus medical air in mildly or non-hypoxaemic people with COPD. Two review authors independently assessed articles for inclusion. One review author completed data extraction and methodological quality assessment. A second review author then over-read evidence tables to assess for accuracy. Twenty-eight trials on 702 patients met the criteria for inclusion; 18 trials (431 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Oxygen reduced dyspnoea with a standardised mean difference (SMD) of -0.37 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.50 to -0.24, P < 0.00001). We observed significant heterogeneity. Oxygen can relieve dyspnoea in mildly and non-hypoxaemic people with COPD who would not otherwise qualify for home oxygen therapy. Given the significant heterogeneity among the included studies, clinicians should continue to evaluate patients on an individual basis until supporting data from ongoing, large randomised controlled trials are available

Oxygen for breathlessness in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who do not qualify for home oxygen therapy

© 2016 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Background: Breathlessness is a cardinal symptom of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) is given to improve survival time in people with COPD and severe chronic hypoxaemia at rest. The efficacy of oxygen therapy for breathlessness and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in people with COPD and mild or no hypoxaemia who do not meet the criteria for LTOT has not been established. Objectives: To determine the efficacy of oxygen versus air in mildly hypoxaemic or non-hypoxaemic patients with COPD in terms of (1) breathlessness; (2) HRQOL; (3) patient preference whether to continue therapy; and (4) oxygen-related adverse events. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase, to 12 July 2016, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We handsearched the reference lists of included articles. Selection criteria: We included RCTs of the effects of non-invasive oxygen versus air on breathlessness, HRQOL or patient preference to continue therapy among people with COPD and mild or no hypoxaemia (partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) > 7.3 kPa) who were not already receiving LTOT. Two review authors independently assessed articles for inclusion in the review. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently collected and analysed data. We assessed risk of bias by using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias tool'. We pooled effects recorded on different scales as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. Lower SMDs indicated decreased breathlessness and reduced HRQOL. We performed subanalyses and sensitivity analyses and assessed the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Main results: Compared with the previous review, which was published in 2011, we included 14 additional studies (493 participants), excluded one study and included data for meta-analysis of HRQOL. In total, we included in this review 44 studies including 1195 participants, and we included 33 of these (901 participants)in the meta-analysis. We found that breathlessness during exercise or daily activities was reduced by oxygen compared with air (32 studies; 865 participants; SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.21; I2 = 37%; low-quality evidence). This translates to a decrease in breathlessness of about 0.7 points on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale. In contrast, we found no effect of short-burst oxygen given before exercise (four studies; 90 participants; SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.28; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Oxygen reduced breathlessness measured during exercise tests (25 studies; 442 participants; SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.22; I2 = 29%; moderate-quality evidence), whereas evidence of an effect on breathlessness measured in daily life was limited (two studies; 274 participants; SMD -0.13, 95% CI, -0.37 to 0.11; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Oxygen did not clearly affect HRQOL (five studies; 267 participants; SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.26; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Patient preference and adverse events could not be analysed owing to insufficient data. Authors' conclusions: We are moderately confident that oxygen can relieve breathlessness when given during exercise to mildly hypoxaemic and non-hypoxaemic people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who would not otherwise qualify for home oxygen therapy. Most evidence pertains to acute effects during exercise tests, and no evidence indicates that oxygen decreases breathlessness in the daily life setting. Findings show that oxygen does not affect health-related quality of life

An injection and mixing element for delivery and monitoring of inhaled nitric oxide

Background Inhaled nitric oxide (NO) is a selective pulmonary vasodilator used primarily in the critical care setting for patients concurrently supported by invasive or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation. NO delivery devices interface with ventilator breathing circuits to inject NO in proportion with the flow of air/oxygen through the circuit, in order to maintain a constant, target concentration of inhaled NO. Methods In the present article, a NO injection and mixing element is presented. The device borrows from the design of static elements to promote rapid mixing of injected NO-containing gas with breathing circuit gases. Bench experiments are reported to demonstrate the improved mixing afforded by the injection and mixing element, as compared with conventional breathing circuit adapters, for NO injection into breathing circuits. Computational fluid dynamics simulations are also presented to illustrate mixing patterns and nitrogen dioxide production within the element. Results Over the range of air flow rates and target NO concentrations investigated, mixing length, defined as the downstream distance required for NO concentration to reach within ±5 % of the target concentration, was as high as 47 cm for the conventional breathing circuit adapters, but did not exceed 7.8 cm for the injection and mixing element. Conclusion The injection and mixing element has potential to improve ease of use, compatibility and safety of inhaled NO administration with mechanical ventilators and gas delivery devices

Respiratory drive in the acute respiratory distress syndrome: pathophysiology, monitoring, and therapeutic interventions

Neural respiratory drive, i.e., the activity of respiratory centres controlling breathing, is an overlooked physiologic variable which affects the pathophysiology and the clinical outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Spontaneous breathing may offer multiple physiologic benefits in these patients, including decreased need for sedation, preserved diaphragm activity and improved cardiovascular function. However, excessive effort to breathe due to high respiratory drive may lead to patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI), even in the absence of mechanical ventilation. In the present review, we focus on the physiological and clinical implications of control of respiratory drive in ARDS patients. We summarize the main determinants of neural respiratory drive and the mechanisms involved in its potentiation, in health and ARDS. We also describe potential and pitfalls of the available bedside methods for drive assessment and explore classical and more \u201cfuturistic\u201d interventions to control drive in ARDS patients