Menadue Collette, Piper Amanda J, van 't Hul Alex J, Wong Keith K
Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW, Australia, 2050.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 May 14;2014(5):CD007714. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007714.pub2.
Exercise training as a component of pulmonary rehabilitation improves health-related quality of life (HRQL) and exercise capacity in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, some individuals may have difficulty performing exercise at an adequate intensity. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) during exercise improves exercise capacity and dyspnoea during a single exercise session. Consequently, NIV during exercise training may allow individuals to exercise at a higher intensity, which could lead to greater improvement in exercise capacity, HRQL and physical activity.
To determine whether NIV during exercise training (as part of pulmonary rehabilitation) affects exercise capacity, HRQL and physical activity in people with COPD compared with exercise training alone or exercise training with sham NIV.
We searched the following databases between January 1987 and November 2013 inclusive: The Cochrane Airways Group specialised register of trials, AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed.
Randomised controlled trials that compared NIV during exercise training versus exercise training alone or exercise training with sham NIV in people with COPD were considered for inclusion in this review.
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were exercise capacity, HRQL and physical activity; secondary outcomes were training intensity, physiological changes related to exercise training, dyspnoea, dropouts, adverse events and cost.
Six studies involving 126 participants who completed the study protocols were included. Most studies recruited participants with severe to very severe COPD (mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) ranged from 26% to 48% predicted). There was an increase in percentage change peak and endurance exercise capacity with NIV during training (mean difference in peak exercise capacity 17%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7% to 27%, 60 participants, low-quality evidence; mean difference in endurance exercise capacity 59%, 95% CI 4% to 114%, 48 participants, low-quality evidence). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference between interventions for all other measures of exercise capacity. The results for HRQL assessed using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire do not rule out an effect of NIV (total score mean 2.5 points, 95% CI -2.3 to 7.2, 48 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Physical activity was not assessed in any study. There was an increase in training intensity with NIV during training of 13% (95% CI 1% to 27%, 67 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and isoload lactate was lower with NIV (mean difference -0.97 mmol/L, 95% CI -1.58mmol/L to -0.36 mmol/L, 37 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The effect of NIV on dyspnoea or the number of dropouts between interventions was uncertain, although again results were imprecise. No adverse events and no information regarding cost were reported. Only one study blinded participants, whereas three studies used blinded assessors. Adequate allocation concealment was reported in four studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The small number of included studies with small numbers of participants, as well as the high risk of bias within some of the included studies, limited our ability to draw strong evidence-based conclusions. Although NIV during lower limb exercise training may allow people with COPD to exercise at a higher training intensity and to achieve a greater physiological training effect compared with exercise training alone or exercise training with sham NIV, the effect on exercise capacity is unclear. Some evidence suggests that NIV during exercise training improves the percentage change in peak and endurance exercise capacity; however, these findings are not consistent across other measures of exercise capacity. There is no clear evidence that HRQL is better or worse with NIV during training. It is currently unknown whether the demonstrated benefits of NIV during exercise training are clinically worthwhile or cost-effective.
运动训练作为肺康复的一部分,可改善慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的健康相关生活质量(HRQL)和运动能力。然而,一些个体可能难以以足够的强度进行运动。运动期间的无创通气(NIV)可改善单次运动期间的运动能力和呼吸困难。因此,运动训练期间的NIV可能使个体能够以更高的强度进行运动,这可能会导致运动能力、HRQL和体力活动有更大改善。
确定与单独运动训练或假NIV运动训练相比,运动训练期间的NIV(作为肺康复的一部分)是否会影响COPD患者的运动能力、HRQL和体力活动。
我们检索了以下数据库,时间范围从1987年1月至2013年11月:Cochrane Airways Group专业试验注册库、联合和补充医学数据库(AMED)、Cochrane系统评价数据库(CENTRAL)、护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE)、拉丁美洲和加勒比卫生科学数据库(LILACS)、医学索引数据库(MEDLINE)、循证医学数据库(PEDro)、心理学文摘数据库(PsycINFO)和医学期刊数据库(PubMed)。
比较运动训练期间NIV与单独运动训练或COPD患者假NIV运动训练的随机对照试验被纳入本综述。
两位综述作者独立选择纳入综述的试验、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。主要结局为运动能力、HRQL和体力活动;次要结局为训练强度、与运动训练相关的生理变化、呼吸困难、退出试验者、不良事件和成本。
纳入了6项研究,共126名完成研究方案的参与者。大多数研究招募的参与者为重度至极重度COPD(一秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)预计值平均范围为26%至48%)。训练期间使用NIV时,峰值和耐力运动能力的百分比变化增加(峰值运动能力的平均差异为17%,95%置信区间(CI)7%至27%,60名参与者,低质量证据;耐力运动能力的平均差异为59%,95%CI 4%至114%,48名参与者,低质量证据)。然而,对于所有其他运动能力测量指标,干预措施之间没有明显差异的明确证据。使用圣乔治呼吸问卷评估的HRQL结果不排除NIV的影响(总分平均2.5分,95%CI -2.3至7.2,48名参与者,中等质量证据)。任何研究均未评估体力活动。训练期间使用NIV时,训练强度增加了13%(95%CI 1%至27%,67名参与者,中等质量证据),且使用NIV时等负荷乳酸水平较低(平均差异-0.97 mmol/L,95%CI -1.58 mmol/L至-0.36 mmol/L,37名参与者,中等质量证据)。NIV对呼吸困难或干预措施之间退出试验者数量的影响尚不确定,尽管结果同样不精确。未报告不良事件和成本信息。仅一项研究对参与者进行了盲法处理,而三项研究使用了盲法评估者。四项研究报告了充分的分配隐藏。
纳入研究数量少且参与者人数少,以及部分纳入研究的高偏倚风险,限制了我们得出强有力的循证结论的能力。尽管与单独运动训练或假NIV运动训练相比,下肢运动训练期间的NIV可能使COPD患者能够以更高的训练强度进行运动,并获得更大的生理训练效果,但对运动能力的影响尚不清楚。一些证据表明,运动训练期间的NIV可改善峰值和耐力运动能力的百分比变化;然而,这些结果在其他运动能力测量指标上并不一致。没有明确证据表明训练期间使用NIV时HRQL会更好或更差。目前尚不清楚运动训练期间NIV所显示的益处是否具有临床价值或成本效益。