NIHR CLAHRC-LNR, Pulmonary Rehabilitation Research Group, Glenfield Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, United Kingdom.
J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2013 May-Jun;33(3):189-95. doi: 10.1097/HCR.0b013e31828db112.
Limited evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) within interstitial lung disease (ILD). Oxygen is frequently prescribed for these patients but has not been explored in the context of PR. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes of PR and 2-year mortality in patients with ILD, who use home oxygen against those without oxygen.
Using an observational cohort design and principles of comparative effectiveness research, data were collected from patients with ILD referred for a 7-week outpatient PR program. Hospital notes were reviewed, oxygen use was documented, and survival status was recorded at 2 years. Exercise capacity and quality of life were measured at baseline and discharge from PR.
One hundred fifteen patients were identified (96 with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis); 43 used oxygen and 72 were nonoxygen users. Nonoxygen users improved their Incremental Shuttle Walk Test more than oxygen users (P < .05). Significant improvements were found after PR for nonoxygen users (Incremental Shuttle Walk Test 39.0 ± 54.3 m, Endurance Shuttle Walk Test 319 ± 359 seconds, Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ)-Dyspnea 0.74 ± 0.94, CRQ-Fatigue 0.73 ± 1.15, CRQ-Emotion 0.61 ± 0.98, CRQ-Mastery 0.55 ± 1.01), whereas only Endurance Shuttle Walk Test (197 ± 287 seconds) improved for oxygen users (P < .05). Significant differences were found in survival rates between the 2 groups, 2 years after initial PR assessment (hazard ratio, oxygen users vs nonoxygen users: 2.7 [95% CI = 1.41 - 4.98], P = .002).
Oxygen users gain less from PR and have a higher mortality rate than nonoxygen users. These results should be used to aid discussion between patients and clinicians regarding referral to PR and the anticipated benefits.
关于肺康复(PR)在间质性肺病(ILD)中的有效性,证据有限。这些患者经常需要吸氧,但在 PR 背景下尚未对此进行探讨。本研究的目的是比较使用家庭氧疗和不使用氧疗的ILD 患者 PR 的短期结局和 2 年死亡率。
使用观察性队列设计和比较有效性研究的原则,从接受为期 7 周门诊 PR 项目的 ILD 患者中收集数据。回顾住院病历,记录氧疗使用情况,并在 2 年时记录生存状况。在基线和 PR 出院时测量运动能力和生活质量。
共确定了 115 例患者(96 例特发性肺纤维化);43 例使用氧气,72 例不使用氧气。与氧疗组相比,非氧疗组的递增式 shuttle 步行试验(Incremental Shuttle Walk Test,ISWT)改善更显著(P<.05)。非氧疗组 PR 后有显著改善(ISWT 增加 39.0±54.3m,耐力 shuttle 步行试验(Endurance Shuttle Walk Test,ESWT)增加 319±359s,慢性呼吸问卷(Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire,CRQ)-呼吸困难增加 0.74±0.94,CRQ-疲劳增加 0.73±1.15,CRQ-情绪增加 0.61±0.98,CRQ-掌控感增加 0.55±1.01),而氧疗组仅 ESWT 增加(197±287s)(P<.05)。两组患者在 PR 初始评估后 2 年的生存率存在显著差异(危险比,氧疗组与非氧疗组:2.7[95%可信区间=1.41-4.98],P=0.002)。
与非氧疗组相比,氧疗组从 PR 中获益较少,死亡率更高。这些结果应有助于患者和临床医生在讨论转诊 PR 以及预期获益时使用。