Department of Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
Centre for Exercise and Rehabilitation Science, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) - Respiratory, Leicester, UK.
Eur Respir Rev. 2024 Apr 10;33(172). doi: 10.1183/16000617.0225-2023. Print 2024 Apr 30.
The variety of innovations to traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (CBPR), including different modes of delivery and adjuncts, are likely to lead to differential responses in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep.
To examine the relative effectiveness of different pulmonary rehabilitation-based interventions on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep.
Randomised trials in chronic respiratory disease involving pulmonary rehabilitation-based interventions were systematically searched for. Network meta-analyses compared interventions for changes in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep in COPD.
46 studies were included, and analyses were performed on most common outcomes: steps per day (k=24), time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA; k=12) and sedentary time (k=8). There were insufficient data on sleep outcomes (k=3). CBPR resulted in greater steps per day and MVPA and reduced sedentary time compared to usual care. CBPR+physical activity promotion resulted in greater increases in steps per day compared to both usual care and CBPR, with greater increases in MVPA and reductions in sedentary time compared to usual care, but not CBPR. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation resulted in greater increases in steps per day and decreases in sedentary time compared to usual care. Compared to usual care, CBPR+physical activity promotion was the only intervention where the lower 95% confidence interval for steps per day surpassed the minimal important difference. No pulmonary rehabilitation-related intervention resulted in greater increases in MVPA or reductions in sedentary time compared to CBPR.
The addition of physical activity promotion to pulmonary rehabilitation improves volume of physical activity, but not intensity, compared to CBPR. High risk of bias and low certainty of evidence suggests that these results should be viewed with caution.
传统中心为基础的肺康复(CBPR)的创新种类繁多,包括不同的输送模式和辅助手段,这可能导致身体活动、久坐行为和睡眠方面的反应不同。
研究不同基于肺康复的干预措施对身体活动、久坐行为和睡眠的相对效果。
系统检索了涉及基于肺康复的干预措施的慢性呼吸疾病的随机试验。网络荟萃分析比较了 COPD 患者在身体活动、久坐行为和睡眠方面的干预措施的变化。
共纳入 46 项研究,对最常见的结局进行了分析:每天的步数(k=24)、中等到剧烈体力活动(MVPA;k=12)时间和久坐时间(k=8)。关于睡眠结果的数据不足(k=3)。与常规护理相比,CBPR 可使每天的步数、MVPA 增加,久坐时间减少。与常规护理和 CBPR 相比,CBPR+体力活动促进可使每天的步数增加更多,MVPA 增加,久坐时间减少,与常规护理相比,但与 CBPR 相比没有。家庭为基础的肺康复与常规护理相比,可使每天的步数增加更多,久坐时间减少。与常规护理相比,CBPR+体力活动促进是唯一一项 95%置信区间下限超过最小有意义差异的干预措施。没有任何肺康复相关干预措施可使 MVPA 增加或久坐时间减少超过 CBPR。
与 CBPR 相比,将体力活动促进加入肺康复可提高身体活动量,但不能提高强度。高偏倚风险和低证据确定性表明,应谨慎看待这些结果。