Suppr超能文献

氦氧混合气训练与无创正压通气对重度慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者运动能力的影响。

Effects of training with heliox and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation on exercise ability in patients with severe COPD.

作者信息

Johnson James E, Gavin Daniel J, Adams-Dramiga Stacy

机构信息

Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.

出版信息

Chest. 2002 Aug;122(2):464-72. doi: 10.1378/chest.122.2.464.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine whether breathing heliox or using nasal noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) would produce immediate improvements in exercise capability in patients with COPD, and whether training for 6 weeks with one of these modalities would result in greater exercise improvement than with training unassisted.

SETTING

US military medical center.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients with severe COPD (mean FEV1 of 33.5% predicted) underwent three incremental treadmill tests to exhaustion unassisted, breathing heliox, or breathing with NIPPV. They were then randomized to undergo 6 weeks of twice-weekly rehabilitation with unassisted exercise training (UT group), training while breathing heliox (HT group), or training while breathing with NIPPV (NT group). The three exercise tests were then repeated.

RESULTS

Heliox treatment did not produce any immediate benefit in exercise time or maximum workload in the 39 patients initially tested, the 32 patients who completed the protocol, or the HT group. Furthermore, no training advantage was evident in the HT group (n = 10) compared to the UT group (n = 11). NIPPV did not produce an immediate benefit in the initial tests, but produced a small increase in exercise time in the 32 patients completing the protocol in the final tests. This effect was primarily because of the NT group, who exercised significantly longer (mean +/- SD, 16.8 +/- 4.9 min vs 14.2 +/- 5.6 min, p = 0.0045) and to a higher workload (4.46 +/- 1.55 metabolic equivalents [METs] vs 4.09 +/- 1.75 METs, respectively; p = 0.038) when tested using the ventilator. Compared to the UT group, the NT group started out with a lower exercise time (7.9 +/- 3.5 min vs 12.3 +/- 5.2 min, p = 0.031) in preliminary testing, but the statistical difference was eliminated in the final tests (14.2 +/- 5.6 min vs 16.0 +/- 5.8 min, respectively; p = 0.451). The NT group actually slightly exceeded the UT group when they used the ventilator in final testing, although this was not statistically significant (16.8 +/- 4.9 min vs 16.0 +/- 5.8 min, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Heliox treatment does not appear to offer an immediate or training advantage with exercise in patients with COPD. For patients who have undergone regular exercise conditioning with NIPPV, use of the ventilator produces an immediate improvement in both exercise time and maximum workload attained, and it may confer a training advantage.

摘要

研究目的

我们试图确定吸入氦氧混合气或使用鼻无创正压通气(NIPPV)是否能使慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的运动能力立即得到改善,以及采用这两种方式之一进行6周训练是否比无辅助训练能带来更大的运动能力改善。

研究地点

美国军事医疗中心。

方法

39例重度COPD患者(预计FEV1平均为33.5%)分别在无辅助、吸入氦氧混合气或使用NIPPV的情况下进行三次递增式跑步机测试,直至力竭。然后将他们随机分为三组,分别接受为期6周、每周两次的康复训练:无辅助运动训练组(UT组)、吸入氦氧混合气训练组(HT组)或使用NIPPV训练组(NT组)。之后重复进行这三项运动测试。

结果

对于最初测试的39例患者、完成方案的32例患者或HT组,氦氧混合气治疗在运动时间或最大工作量方面均未产生任何即时益处。此外,与UT组(n = 11)相比,HT组(n = 10)没有明显的训练优势。NIPPV在初始测试中未产生即时益处,但在最终测试中,完成方案的32例患者的运动时间略有增加。这种效果主要是由于NT组,在使用呼吸机测试时,NT组的运动时间明显更长(平均±标准差,16.8±4.9分钟对14.2±5.6分钟,p = 0.0045),且达到的工作量更高(分别为4.46±1.55代谢当量[METs]对4.09±1.75 METs;p = 0.038)。与UT组相比,NT组在初步测试中的运动时间较短(7.9±3.5分钟对12.3±5.2分钟,p = 0.031),但在最终测试中这种统计学差异消失了(分别为14.2±5.6分钟对16.0±5.8分钟;p = 0.451)。在最终测试中,当NT组使用呼吸机时,实际上略微超过了UT组,尽管这在统计学上不显著(分别为16.8±4.9分钟对16.0±5.8分钟)。

结论

氦氧混合气治疗似乎在COPD患者运动方面未提供即时或训练优势。对于接受过NIPPV常规运动训练的患者,使用呼吸机可使运动时间和达到的最大工作量立即得到改善,并且可能具有训练优势。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验