Paneroni Mara, Colombo Fausto, Papalia Antonella, Colitta Arcangela, Borghi Gabriella, Saleri Manuela, Cabiaglia Antonella, Azzalini Elena, Vitacca Michele
1Respiratory Rehabilitation Unit, IRCCS Salvatore Maugeri Foundation , Lumezzane (Brescia) , Italy.
COPD. 2015 Apr;12(2):217-25. doi: 10.3109/15412555.2014.933794. Epub 2014 Aug 5.
In patients with COPD non-naïve to rehabilitation we tested the feasibility, adherence and satisfaction of a home-based reinforcement telerehabilitation program (TRP). Outcomes were compared with a standard outpatient rehabilitation program (ORP). Then 18 TRP patients underwent 28 sessions of strength exercises (60 min) and cycle training (40 min) using a satellite platform provided telemonitoring, tele-prescription, video-assistance and phone-calls, patients were equipped with an oximeter, steps-counter, bicycle, remote control and interactive TV software. 18 matched ORP, retrospectively identified from our hospital ORP database, were used as controls. At baseline and end of program, the 6-min walking test (6MWT), Medical Research Council (MRC) scale and Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were administered. In TRP only, we assessed platform use, incremental exercise, steps walked/day and patient satisfaction. TRP patients completed all sessions without side effects, used the remote control 1,394 ± 2,329 times being in the 84% of the cases satisfied with the service. In 22% of the cases patients found the technology unfriendly. Each health-professional performed 46 ± 65 actions, 14.6 ± 2.12 phone calls and 1 ± 1.67 videoconference sessions per patient. TRP patients increased physical activity (3,412 vs. 1,863 steps/day, p = 0.0002). Both programs produced significant (all, p < 0.01) gains in 6MWT [meters, TRP +34.22 ± 50.79; ORP +33.61 ± 39.25], dyspnea [TRP - 0.72 ± 0.89; ORP - 0.94 ± 0.53] and SGRQ [TRP - 6.9 ± 9.96, ORP - 9.9 ± 12.92] without between-group differences. In conclusion, TRP is feasible and well accepted by patients, although sometimes technology was perceived as difficult. It seems to improve walking capacity, dyspnea, quality of life and daily physical activity. Future RCTs will demonstrate cost-effectiveness.
在既往接受过康复治疗的慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者中,我们测试了一项基于家庭的强化远程康复计划(TRP)的可行性、依从性和满意度。将结果与标准门诊康复计划(ORP)进行比较。然后,18名TRP患者使用卫星平台进行了28次力量训练(60分钟)和循环训练(40分钟),该平台提供远程监测、远程处方、视频辅助和电话服务,患者配备了血氧仪、计步器、自行车、遥控器和交互式电视软件。从我院ORP数据库中回顾性确定18名匹配的ORP患者作为对照。在基线和计划结束时,进行6分钟步行试验(6MWT)、医学研究委员会(MRC)量表和圣乔治呼吸问卷(SGRQ)评估。仅在TRP组中,我们评估了平台使用情况、增量运动、每日步行步数和患者满意度。TRP患者完成了所有疗程,无副作用,使用遥控器1394±2329次,84%的患者对服务满意。22%的患者认为该技术不友好。每位医护人员为每位患者执行46±65次操作、14.6±2.12次电话随访和1±1.67次视频会议。TRP患者的身体活动增加(每日步数:3412对1863,p = 0.0002)。两个计划在6MWT[米,TRP增加34.22±50.79;ORP增加33.61±39.25]、呼吸困难[TRP降低0.72±0.89;ORP降低0.94±0.53]和SGRQ[TRP降低6.9±9.96,ORP降低9.9±12.92]方面均产生了显著改善(所有p<0.01),组间无差异。总之,TRP是可行的,患者接受度良好,尽管有时患者认为技术操作困难。它似乎能改善步行能力、呼吸困难、生活质量和日常身体活动。未来的随机对照试验将证明其成本效益。