Zhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Teaching Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Xiamen, China.
Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, The First Hospital of Longyan Affiliated to Fujian Medical University, Longyan, Fujian, China.
COPD. 2022;19(1):69-80. doi: 10.1080/15412555.2022.2029834. Epub 2022 Jan 31.
Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an essential method for Acute exacerbation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) recovery. We perform a meta-analysis to compare early PR with usual care. A literature search was performed through these databases: PubMed, MEDLINE database, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Embase from inception to July 2021. Eligible trials were clinical randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of early PR and usual care in AECOPD patients. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was FEV1% predicted, 6-min walk test (6MWD), modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) and George Respiratory Questionnaire-total (SGRQ-total). The secondary outcomes were borg dyspnea score, short-form 36 health survey questionnaire physical (SF-36 physical) and SF-36 mental. We included 13 RCTs with a total of 866 patients. There were no significant effects of the PR group on measures of FEV1% predicted (MD = 0.50, 95%CI -1.43 to 2.44, = 0.51, = 0.61), borg dyspnea score (MD = -0.88, 95%CI -1.89 to 0.13, = 1.71, = 0.09) and SF-36 mental (MD = 4.34, 95%CI -1.64 to 10.32, = 1.42, = 0.16) compared with usual care. PR group achieved better 6MWD (MD = 97.58, 95%CI 17.21 to 177.96, = 2.38, = 0.02), mMRC (MD = -0.36, 95%CI -0.52 to -0.21, = 4.56, ˂ 0.00001), SGRQ-total (MD= -9.67, 95%CI -16.23 to -3.11, = 2.89, = 0.004) and SF-36 physical (MD = 4.98, 95%CI 0.60 to 9.35, = 2.23, = 0.03) compared with usual care group. Early PR in AECOPD patients would lead to better 6MWD, mMRC, SGRQ-total and SF-36 physical. But there were no significant effects of the PR group on measures of FEV1% predicted, borg dyspnea score and SF-36 mental.
肺康复(PR)是慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重(AECOPD)恢复的重要方法。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,比较了早期 PR 与常规护理。通过以下数据库进行文献检索:PubMed、MEDLINE 数据库、Google Scholar、Cochrane、Embase,从开始到 2021 年 7 月。合格的试验是比较早期 PR 和 AECOPD 患者常规护理效果的临床随机对照试验。这项荟萃分析的主要终点是 FEV1%预测值、6 分钟步行试验(6MWD)、改良医学研究委员会(mMRC)和乔治呼吸问卷总分(SGRQ-总分)。次要结局是博尔格呼吸困难评分、短格式 36 健康调查问卷生理(SF-36 生理)和 SF-36 心理。我们纳入了 13 项 RCT,共 866 名患者。PR 组在 FEV1%预测值(MD = 0.50,95%CI -1.43 至 2.44, = 0.51, = 0.61)、博尔格呼吸困难评分(MD = -0.88,95%CI -1.89 至 0.13, = 1.71, = 0.09)和 SF-36 心理(MD = 4.34,95%CI -1.64 至 10.32, = 1.42, = 0.16)方面与常规护理相比,没有显著效果。PR 组在 6MWD(MD = 97.58,95%CI 17.21 至 177.96, = 2.38, = 0.02)、mMRC(MD = -0.36,95%CI -0.52 至 -0.21, = 4.56, ˂ 0.00001)、SGRQ-总分(MD= -9.67,95%CI -16.23 至 -3.11, = 2.89, = 0.004)和 SF-36 生理(MD = 4.98,95%CI 0.60 至 9.35, = 2.23, = 0.03)方面明显优于常规护理组。早期 PR 对 AECOPD 患者有更好的 6MWD、mMRC、SGRQ-总分和 SF-36 生理。但 PR 组在 FEV1%预测值、博尔格呼吸困难评分和 SF-36 心理方面没有显著效果。