2 research outputs found
The effects of maintenance schedules following pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled trial.
OBJECTIVES: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) provides benefit for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in terms of quality of life (QoL) and exercise capacity; however, the effects diminish over time. Our aim was to evaluate a maintenance programme for patients who had completed PR. SETTING: Primary and secondary care PR programmes in Norfolk. PARTICIPANTS: 148 patients with COPD who had completed at least 60% of a standard PR programme were randomised and data are available for 110 patients. Patients had greater than 20 pack year smoking history and less than 80% predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s but no other significant disease or recent respiratory tract infection. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to receive a maintenance programme or standard care. The maintenance programme consisted of 2 h (1 h individually tailored exercise training and 1 h education programme) every 3 months for 1 year. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) (primary outcome), endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT), EuroQol (EQ5D), hospital anxiety and depression score (HADS), body mass index (BMI), body fat, activity levels (overall score and activity diary) and exacerbations were assessed before and after 12 months. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for the change in CRQ dyspnoea score (primary end point) at 12 months which amounted to 0.19 (-0.26 to 0.64) units or other domains of the CRQ. There was no difference in the ESWT duration (-10.06 (-191.16 to 171.03) seconds), BMI, body fat, EQ5D, MET-minutes, activity rating, HADS, exacerbations or admissions. CONCLUSIONS: A maintenance programme of three monthly 2 h sessions does not improve outcomes in patients with COPD after 12 months. We do not recommend that our maintenance programme is adopted. Other methods of sustaining the benefits of PR are required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00925171.This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0408-16225). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.This is the final published version. It first appeared at http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/3/e005921.full?g=w_thorax_open_tab
Barriers to pulmonary rehabilitation: Characteristics that predict patient attendance and adherence
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is efficacious in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). As completion rates of PR are poor, we wished to assess predictors of attendance and adherence. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 711 patients with COPD, who were invited to attend PR. Data were compared to allow predictors (gender, smoking status, attending partner, referral route, employment status, body mass index, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)), oxygen therapy (LTOT), oxygen saturations, chronic respiratory questionnaire (CRQ), shuttle walk distance, travel distance and time) of attendance (0 or >0 attendance) and adherence (63% attendance) to be identified. RESULTS: 31.8% of patients referred for PR did not attend and a further 29.1% were non-adherent. Predictors of non-attendance were female gender, current smoker, and living alone. Predictors of non-adherence were extremes of age, current smoking, LTOT use, FEV(1), CRQ score and travelling distance. Multiple logistic regression revealed that LTOT and living alone were independent predictors of poor attendance and current smoking, poor shuttle walking distance and hospitalisations were independent predictors of poor adherence. CONCLUSION: Smoking status, availability of social support and markers of disease severity were predictors of attendance and adherence to PR