Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation for patients hospitalised with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) reduces the risk of hospital admissions, and improves physical function and health-related quality of life. However, the safety and efficacy of in-hospital PR during the most acute phase of an AECOPD is not well established. This paper describes the protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of inpatient acute care PR during the hospitalisation phase.

Methods and analysis

Medical literature databases and registries MEDLINE, EMBASE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, CENTRAL, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, WHO trials portal and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for articles from inception to June 2021 using a prespecified search strategy. We will identify randomised controlled trials that have a comparison of in-hospital PR with usual care. PR programmes had to commence during the hospitalisation and include a minimum of two sessions. Title and abstract followed by full-text screening will be conducted independently by two reviewers. A meta-analysis will be performed if there is sufficient homogeneity across selected studies or groups of studies. The Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes and Study characteristics framework will be used to standardise the data collection process. The quality of the cumulative evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework.

Ethics and dissemination

AECOPD results in physical limitations which are amenable to PR. This review will assess the safety and efficacy of in-hospital PR for AECOPD. The results will be presented in a peer-reviewed publication and at research conferences. Ethical review is not required for this study.

SUBMITTER: Zhu K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8231038 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose:Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a well-established treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The standard protocol for PR requires frequent hospital visits, which can be difficult for patients. We performed this study to assess whether unsupervised home-based PR (HBPR) is effective for patients with COPD. Patients and Methods:After assessing the outcome data, including the results of a COPD assessment test (CAT); the body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity (BODE) index; a spirometry; the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale; and the 6-min walking test (6MWT), specialists imparted 1-hour education to patients regarding unsupervised HBPR at the baseline visit. This included methods for breathing, inhaler use, stretching, and exercise. On reviewing diaries after 8 weeks from the first visit, patients who exercised at least thrice per week were classified as the compliant group and the others were categorized as the noncompliant group. Changes in the outcomes were compared between the compliant and noncompliant groups. Results:A total of 41 patients were enrolled in this study; for 8 weeks of unsupervised HBPR, there were significant improvements in CAT scores (-4.62±4.61 vs 2.40±6.73; P=0.002), BODE index (-1.00±1.06 vs -0.20±0.56; P=0.01), and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (0.05±0.19 vs -0.09±0.16; P=0.02) among patients in the compliant group, compared with the noncompliant group. Moreover, their CAT (16.46±7.80 vs 11.85±7.23; P=0.03) and mMRC scores (2.54±0.76 vs 1.81±0.63; P=0.001) improved significantly after 8 weeks, compared with those at baseline. On the other hand, patients in the noncompliant group showed no significant improvement in any of the outcomes. Conclusion:In this study, compliant patients with unsupervised HBPR achieved favorable outcomes in 8 weeks. Thus, we recommend unsupervised HBPR for patients with COPD, even when regular hospital visits for PR are not possible. Trial Registration:NCT03754881.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can experience 'exacerbations' of their conditions. An exacerbation is an event defined in terms of subjective descriptors or symptoms, namely dyspnoea, cough and sputum that worsen sufficiently to warrant a change in medical management. There is a need for reliable markers that reflect the pathological mechanisms that underlie exacerbation severity and that can be used as a surrogate to assess treatment effects in clinical studies. Little is known as to how existing study variables and suggested markers change in both the stable and exacerbation phases of COPD. In an attempt to find the best surrogates for exacerbations, we have reviewed the literature to identify which of these markers change in a consistent manner with the severity of the exacerbation event. METHODS: We have searched standard databases between 1966 to July 2004 using major keywords and terms. Studies that provided demographics, spirometry, potential markers, and clear eligibility criteria were included in this study. Central tendencies and dispersions for all the variables and markers reported and collected by us were first tabulated according to sample size and ATS/ERS 2004 Exacerbation Severity Levels I to III criteria. Due to the possible similarity of patients in Levels II and III, the data was also redefined into categories of exacerbations, namely out-patient (Level I) and in-patient (Levels II & III combined). For both approaches, we performed a fixed effect meta-analysis on each of the reported variables. RESULTS: We included a total of 268 studies reported between 1979 to July 2004. These studies investigated 142,407 patients with COPD. Arterial carbon dioxide tension and breathing rate were statistically different between all levels of exacerbation severity and between in out- and in-patient settings. Most other measures showed weak relationships with either level or setting, or they had insufficient data to permit meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Arterial carbon dioxide and breathing rate varied in a consistent manner with exacerbation severity and patient setting. Many other measures showed weak correlations that should be further explored in future longitudinal studies or assessed using suggested mathematical modelling techniques.