Moore Elizabeth, Newson Roger, Joshi Miland, Palmer Thomas, Rothnie Kieran J, Singh Sally, Majeed Azeem, Soljak Michael, Quint Jennifer K
Department of Respiratory Epidemiology, Occupational Medicine & Public Health, Imperial College London, National Heart and Lung Institute, London, UK.
Department of Primary Care and Pubic Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Chest. 2017 Dec;152(6):1188-1202. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.05.006. Epub 2017 May 16.
In previous systematic reviews (predominantly of randomized controlled trials), pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has been shown to reduce hospital admissions for acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD). However, findings have been less consistent for cohort studies. The goal of this study was to compare rates of hospitalized and general practice (GP)-treated AECOPD prior to and following PR.
Using anonymized data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics, hospital admissions and GP visits for AECOPD were compared 1 year prior to and 1 year following PR in patients referred for PR. Exacerbation rates were also compared between individuals eligible and referred for PR vs those eligible and not referred.
A total of 69,089 (64%) of the patients with COPD in the cohort were eligible for PR. Of these, only 6,436 (9.3%) were recorded as having been referred for rehabilitation. A total of 62,019 (89.8%) were not referred, and 634 (0.98%) declined referral. When combining GP and hospital exacerbations, patients who were eligible and referred for PR had a slightly higher but not statistically significant exacerbation rate (2.83 exacerbations/patient-year; 95% CI, 2.66-3.00) than those who were eligible but not referred (2.17 exacerbations/patient-year; 95% CI, 2.11-2.24).
This study found that < 10% of patients who were eligible for PR were actually referred. Patients who were eligible and referred for (but not necessarily completed) PR did not have fewer GP visits and hospitalizations for AECOPD in the year following PR compared with those not referred or compared with the year prior to PR.
在既往的系统评价(主要针对随机对照试验)中,肺康复(PR)已被证明可减少慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重(AECOPD)导致的住院次数。然而,队列研究的结果一致性较差。本研究的目的是比较PR前后因AECOPD住院及接受全科医生(GP)治疗的发生率。
利用临床实践研究数据链和医院 Episode 统计的匿名数据,对转诊接受PR的患者在PR前1年和PR后1年因AECOPD的住院次数和GP就诊次数进行比较。还比较了符合PR条件并被转诊者与符合条件但未被转诊者之间的急性加重发生率。
队列中共有69,089例(64%)慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者符合PR条件。其中,仅有6,436例(9.3%)被记录为已转诊接受康复治疗。共有62,019例(89.8%)未被转诊,634例(0.98%)拒绝转诊。将GP和医院急性加重情况合并计算时,符合PR条件并被转诊的患者急性加重发生率(2.83次/患者年;95%CI,2.66 - 3.00)略高于符合条件但未被转诊的患者(2.17次/患者年;95%CI,2.11 - 2.24),但差异无统计学意义。
本研究发现,符合PR条件的患者中实际被转诊者不到10%。与未被转诊者或PR前一年相比,符合PR条件并被转诊(但不一定完成)的患者在PR后一年因AECOPD的GP就诊次数和住院次数并未减少。