Bianchi L, Foglio K, Porta R, Baiardi R, Vitacca M, Ambrosino N
Salvatore Maugeri Foundation IRCCS, Pulmonary Rehabilitation Unit, Scientific Institute of Gussago, Italy.
Respir Med. 2002 May;96(5):359-67. doi: 10.1053/rmed.2001.1287.
Different modalities of assisted ventilation improve breathlessness and exercise tolerance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of the addition of assisted ventilation during exercise training on the outcome of a structured pulmonary rehabilitation programme (PRP) in COPD patients. Thirty-three male patients with stable COPD (mean (SD) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 44 (16) % pred), without chronic ventilatory failure, undergoing a 6-week multidisciplinary outpatient PRP including exercise training, were randomised to training during either mask proportional assist ventilation (PAV: 18 patients) or spontaneous breathing (SB: 15 patients). Assessment included exercise tolerance, dyspnoea, leg fatigue, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). Five out of 18 patients (28%) in the PAV group dropped out due to lack of compliance with the equipment. Both groups showed significant post-PRP improvements in exercise tolerance (peak work rate difference: 20 (95% Cl 2.4-37.6) and 14 (3.8% CI to 24.2) W in PAV and SB group, respectively), dyspnoea and leg fatigue, but not in HRQL, without any significant difference between groups. It is concluded that with the modality and in the patients assessed in this study assisted ventilation during training sessions included in a multidisciplinary PRP was not well tolerated by all patients and gave no additional physiological benefit in comparison with exercise training alone.
不同的辅助通气方式可改善慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的呼吸困难和运动耐力。本研究旨在评估在运动训练期间增加辅助通气对COPD患者结构化肺康复计划(PRP)结局的影响。33例稳定期COPD男性患者(1秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)平均(标准差)为预计值的44(16)%),无慢性通气衰竭,正在接受为期6周的多学科门诊PRP,包括运动训练,被随机分为在面罩比例辅助通气(PAV:18例患者)或自主呼吸(SB:15例患者)状态下进行训练。评估内容包括运动耐力、呼吸困难、腿部疲劳和健康相关生活质量(HRQL)。PAV组18例患者中有5例(28%)因不依从设备而退出。两组在PRP后运动耐力(PAV组和SB组的峰值工作率差异分别为20(95%CI 2.4 - 37.6)和14(3.8%CI至24.2)W)、呼吸困难和腿部疲劳方面均有显著改善,但在HRQL方面无改善,两组之间无显著差异。结论是,在本研究评估的患者中,多学科PRP中训练期间的辅助通气并非所有患者都能良好耐受,与单独的运动训练相比,未带来额外的生理益处。