Dataset Information

Effectiveness of a Three-Week Inpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program for Patients after COVID-19: A Prospective Observational Study.

ABSTRACT: For COVID-19 patients who remain symptomatic after the acute phase, pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is recommended. However, only a few studies have investigated the effectiveness of PR, especially considering the duration between the acute phase of COVID-19 and the onset of rehabilitation, as well as the initial severity. This prospective observational study evaluated the efficacy of PR in patients after COVID-19. A total of 120 still-symptomatic patients referred for PR after overcoming acute COVID-19 were asked to participate, of whom 108 (mean age 55.6 ± 10.1 years, 45.4% female) consented. The patients were assigned to three groups according to the time of referral and initial disease severity (severe acute; severe after interval; mild after interval). The primary outcome was dyspnea. Secondary outcomes included other respiratory disease symptoms, physical capacity, lung function, fatigue, quality of life (QoL), depression, and anxiety. Furthermore, patients rated the overall effectiveness of PR and their subjective change in health status. At the end of PR, we detected improvements with large effect sizes in exertional dyspnea, physical capacity, QoL, fatigue, and depression in the overall group. Other parameters changed with small to medium effect sizes. PR was effective after acute COVID-19 in all three groups analyzed.

SUBMITTER: Hayden MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8430843 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of a Three-Week Inpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program for Patients after COVID-19: A Prospective Observational Study.

Hayden Markus C MC Limbach Matthias M Schuler Michael M Merkl Steffen S Schwarzl Gabriele G Jakab Katalin K Nowak Dennis D Schultz Konrad K

International journal of environmental research and public health 20210826 17

For COVID-19 patients who remain symptomatic after the acute phase, pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is recommended. However, only a few studies have investigated the effectiveness of PR, especially considering the duration between the acute phase of COVID-19 and the onset of rehabilitation, as well as the initial severity. This prospective observational study evaluated the efficacy of PR in patients after COVID-19. A total of 120 still-symptomatic patients referred for PR after overcoming acute CO ...[more]

PMID: 34501596

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is the cornerstone of nonpharmacological treatments in chronic respiratory disease (CRD) management. PR can be performed in different settings, the most frequent of which are inpatient (inPR) and outpatient (outPR) management. In the literature, these two distinct modalities are generally considered to be the same intervention. Yet, they differ in terms of the length of stay, social support, and the time the patient is not in their normal environment, and the presumed absence of differences in terms of efficacy has never been established.PurposeTo identify studies that directly compared the effects of inPR and outPR on patients with all types of CRDs through a systematic review and to synthesize the evidence regarding the effectiveness comparison of both modalities.MethodsA literature search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library on 24 March 2022. The inclusion criteria were: articles with adults with chronic respiratory disease and comparing inPR versus outPR in at least one PR outcome.ResultsSeven hundred thirty-six articles were retrieved from the databases. Six retrospective articles met the inclusion criteria. A best-evidence synthesis (BES) was carried out. Eight outcomes could be found in the included papers. For healthcare burden and refusals, no data could be extracted, and thus no BES was performed. For the eight remaining outcomes, two results were in favor of inPR with moderate evidence (HRQoL and psychological status), three were in favor of no difference between inPR and outPR with moderate or limited evidence (muscle strength, dropouts/adherence, and survival status), and three led to conflicting results (exercise tolerance, dyspnea, and economic costs).ConclusionWith the current state of knowledge, the majority of the studies converge towards an absence of differences between inPR and outPR or in favor of inPR for seven out of eight outcomes, albeit with moderate, limited, or conflicting evidence. The greater effectiveness of inPR for some outcomes will have to be confirmed in a well-designed RCT in order to orient public health policies in terms of the development of PR with the best evidence-based medicine approach.Trial registrationPROSPERO: CRD42020166546 .

Project description:BackgroundAlthough moderate and severe Covid-19 patients have shown obstructive and restrictive disorders in pulmonary function after recovery from the disease, studies evaluating the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs that seek to improve lung function are scarce.AimHerein, we evaluate changes in lung function and perceived dyspnea in Covid-19 patients after undergoing 12 weeks of a pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) program.DesignRetrospective observational study.SettingCesar, Colombia Neumocesar Pneumological Center.Population100 outpatients with a history of Covid-19.MethodsRespiratory function using spirometry parameters, as well as perceived dyspnea, measured by the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale, was evaluated in 100 patients with a history of Covid-19. We used univariate and multivariate statistical approaches to assess changes in lung function and perceived dyspnea before and after a PR program to determine whether gender, age, height, weight, comorbidities, and oxygen delivery system affects the recovery of lung function and perceived dyspnea.ResultsIt was found that PR treatment has positive effects on respiratory pathologies caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection regardless of patient gender (S = 0,029), indicating that rehabilitation provided benefits regardless of the physical characteristics of the patients. Both univariate and multivariate statistical analyses indicated that FVC (P = 0,0001), FEV1(P = 0,0001), and mMRC (P = 0,0001) are robust diagnostic indicators of lung function recovery and perceived dyspnea. Both invasive and non-invasive positive pressure ventilatory support had deleterious effects on lung function prolongating patient recovery (P = 0,0001).ConclusionsRehabilitation programs can benefit patients facing respiratory pathologies caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additional research on the long-term effects of the sequelae of Covid-19 is needed.Clinical rehabilitation impactPR programs have positive effects on patients facing respiratory pathologies caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Project description:BackgroundIndividuals with persistent impairments due to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can receive pulmonary rehabilitation in Germany. To date, there is no evidence of the medium- or long-term effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on Long COVID.AimThis study examined changes in health and occupational outcomes over time and described the therapeutic content of pulmonary rehabilitation and aftercare. This analysis also compared two rehabilitation groups after COVID-19 who had different levels of access to rehabilitation.DesignLongitudinal observational study with multicenter and prospective data collection.SettingPulmonary rehabilitation in four different rehabilitation facilities in Germany.PopulationIndividuals with a mild course of disease and long-lasting impairments (inpatient rehabilitation, IR) and patients with a severe course after hospitalization (follow-up rehabilitation, FuR). Participants had to be between 18 and 65 years of age.MethodsWritten questionnaires were administered at the beginning and end of rehabilitation, as well as six and twelve months after rehabilitation. Health-related quality of life (HrQoL), fatigue, participation restrictions, COVID-19 symptoms, mental and physical health were assessed, as well as occupational outcomes and questions about rehabilitation and aftercare.ResultsIR patients were predominantly female (68.0%) and 52 years of age on average, while 66.1% of Long COVID rehabilitees in FuR were male and three years older. Over the course of rehabilitation, most COVID-19 symptoms decreased with statistical significance. The subjective health scales showed improvements with medium to large effect sizes (ES) over time in IR (P<0.01; ES between 0.55 (cognitive fatigue) and 1.40 (physical fatigue)) and small to large effects in FuR (P<0.01; ES between 0.45 (anxiety) and 1.32 (physical fatigue)). One year after rehabilitation, most effects remained at a moderate level. After twelve months, an increase in neurocognitive symptoms was observed in FuR patients. More than 80% of employed people returned to work one year after rehabilitation, although FuR patients returned to work a median of four weeks later (P<0.01).ConclusionsThe comparative analysis showed that rehabilitees in different forms of rehabilitation attended rehabilitation with different impairments and rehabilitation goals, which are partly considered in treatment and aftercare.Clinical rehabilitation impactTo provide needs-based rehabilitation to different rehabilitation groups with Long COVID, knowledge of their health histories and preferences is necessary.

Project description:Forms of rehabilitation for patients after COVID-19 are gaining interest. The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare an innovative in-hospital pulmonary rehabilitation programs augmented with training elements performed in virtual reality. This randomized controlled study included 32 patients enrolled in post-COVID-19 rehabilitation at a Public Hospital in Poland. The rehabilitation models included exercise capacity training on a cycle ergometer, breathing and general fitness workout, resistance training, and relaxation. The forms of training and relaxation differed between the groups: the experimental group employed virtual reality, and the control group used a traditional form of therapy. Exercise tolerance was assessed using a 6 min walk test (6 MWT), while psychological parameters were evaluated using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the brief World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale (WHOQOL-BRIEF). The analysis of the post-rehabilitation results showed a statistically significant improvement in both groups regarding depression (VR: 6.9 (3.9) vs. 4.7 (3.5), p = 0.008; CG: 7.64 (4.5) vs. 6.6 (4.8), p = 0.017) and anxiety (VR: 8.6 (4.6) vs. 5.6 (3.3), p < 0.001; CG: 9.57 (6.0) vs. 8 (4.8), p = 0.003). No statistically significant improvements in quality of life were noted in both groups. Moreover, the analysis showed a statistically significant improvement in the exercise capacity in both groups after completion of the rehabilitation program, expressed as a distance in the 6 MWT, as well as a statistically significant improvement in dyspnea in the VR group. To conclude, the analysis of the preliminary data revealed that a 3-week hospital-based pulmonary rehabilitation program for COVID-19 patients led to an improvement in exercise tolerance as well as a reduction in the symptoms of anxiety and depression. The virtual reality-based form of training delivery, despite its attractiveness, did not significantly affect patients' performance.

Project description:BackgroundObservational studies can provide important information on the efficacy and safety of antihypertensive agents in the real-life clinical setting. AdADOSE was a large observational study to assess the effectiveness of nifedipine GITS in combination with other antihypertensive agent(s). The study was also the first to examine the role of combination therapy with nifedipine GITS in the Middle East, Pakistan and Russia, regions that are associated with particularly high cardiovascular risk.MethodsAdADOSE was a 12-week, international, multicenter, prospective, observational study. Patients with hypertension (ie, blood pressure [BP] >140/90 mm Hg, or >130/80 mm Hg in patients at high or very high cardiovascular risk) received once-daily nifedipine GITS (30, 60 or 90 mg) in combination with another antihypertensive or as add-on to existing therapy. The primary study endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved the target BP of <140/90 mm Hg (or <130/80 mm Hg for those at high or very high cardiovascular risk). Study outcomes are reported by descriptive statistics.ResultsThe study enrolled 4497 patients (n = 4477, safety population; n = 3430, efficacy population). Baseline mean systolic/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) was 166.4/99.7 mm Hg; 85.2 % of patients had received prior antihypertensive treatment, and 90.6 % had ≥ 1 concomitant diseases. Following combination treatment with nifedipine GITS, target BP was achieved by 64.8% of patients without concomitant diseases, and by 56.5%, 32.3% and 22.6% with 1, 2-3 and >3 concomitant diseases, respectively. The proportion of patients achieving target BP was 51.5% in previously untreated and 33.7% in previously treated patients. Nifedipine GITS combination treatment provided mean SBP/DBP changes of -36.1/-18.8 mm Hg in all patients, -40.2/-21.5 mm Hg in previously untreated patients, and -35.6/-18.4 mm Hg in previously treated patients, with similar BP reductions irrespective of the number of concomitant diseases. Drug-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in 2.6% patients. There were no serious AEs and only 0.8% of patients discontinued due to drug-related AEs.ConclusionsCombination therapy with nifedipine GITS in a real-life observational setting was highly effective in reducing SBP/DBP in a range of hypertensive patients, with low rates of treatment-related AEs.Trial registrationTrial registrationat ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT01118286 .

Project description:BackgroundNumerous recommendations from pulmonary scientific societies indicate the need to implement rehabilitation programs for patients after COVID-19. The aim of this study was to propose an innovative comprehensive intervention based on a hospital-based pulmonary rehabilitation program for individuals with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19.MethodsIt was decided to evaluate two forms of hospital rehabilitation: traditional and one provided through virtual reality. Preliminary results are based on a group of 32 patients (20 female and 12 male), of average age 57.8 (4.92) years in the period of 3-6 months after the initial infection. Primary outcomes included analysis of lung function, exercise performance and stress level. A 3-week, high-intensity, five-times per week pulmonary rehabilitation program was designed to compare the effectiveness of a traditional form with a VR-led, novel form of therapy.ResultsThe analysis of the results showed a statistically significant improvement in both groups with regard to exercise performance expressed as 6MWT distance. Moreover, a statistically significant decrease in dyspnoea levels following the 6MWT was also noted in intergroup comparison, but the between-group comparison revealed non-statistically significant changes with low effect size. Regarding lung function, the analysis showed essentially normal lung function at baseline and a non-statistically significant improvement after the completion of the rehabilitation program. The analysis of the stress level showed a statistically significant improvement in both groups within the inter-group comparison, yet the between-group comparison of deltas values showed a non-significant difference with low effect size.ConclusionA 3-weeks inpatients pulmonary rehabilitation program led to improvement of the exercise performance of people with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, but not lung function. Furthermore, the program was shown to reduce patients' stress levels. A comparison of the traditional form of rehabilitation to the novel form using VR, shows similar effectiveness in terms of exercise performance and stress levels.

Project description:Background: Inpatient rehabilitation for cancer patients has been demonstrated to improve patients' health related quality of life (HRQoL) effectively. The purpose of this study was to compare changes in general health and HRQoL of cancer patients who were referred to inpatient rehabilitation (IR) with those in two control groups who underwent outpatient management either with advice for inpatient rehabilitation (A+) or without (A-). Methods: In this naturalistic, longitudinal, controlled cohort study, changes in general health and HRQoL were assessed at either discharge of acute hospital or start of rehabilitation (baseline) and at the follow-up 3 weeks later or end of rehabilitation. Outcome variables included general health and HRQoL assessed by the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT), and fatigue (FACT-F), depression and anxiety by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Changes on the scores were compared with bivariate and multivariate analyses using standardized mean differences (SMD). Results: IR patients (n=133) were on average older, reported lower HRQoL and health, and suffered more frequently from carcinoma than patients of the A+ (n=30) and the A- (n=82) groups. In the IR patients, pain, physical functioning, mental health, vitality, and fatigue improved significantly compared to the A+ controls. Compared to the A- group, the bivariate effects were lower but still statistically significant on many scales. Conclusions: IR showed moderate, statistically significant superior effects over outpatient management of cancer patients after acute treatment. Findings indicate that inpatient cancer rehabilitation can be recommended as an effective management after acute treatment. As today, referrals to inpatient rehabilitation for cancer patients are still not based on structured standardized procedures, the implementation of such screening is needed to address patients' needs and to render the potential for rehabilitation more reliable.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of a Three-Week Inpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program for Patients after COVID-19: A Prospective Observational Study.

Publications

Effectiveness of a Three-Week Inpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program for Patients after COVID-19: A Prospective Observational Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets