Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Outpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients with Surgically Resected Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Real-World Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Patients with lung cancer frequently suffer from physical deconditioning, low exercise capacity, and reduced quality of life. There is little evidence on the effects of a structured outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation program (OPR) on exercise capacity and symptom load in these patients. We performed a retrospective, single-center analysis of surgically resected lung cancer patients, who underwent a multiprofessional 6-week OPR. The primary endpoint was a change in the six-minute walk test distance (6 MWT). Secondary endpoints included changes in maximal workload and constant work-rate test results during cycle-ergometry, upper and lower extremity strength, and inspiratory muscle strength. The COPD Assessment Test (CAT) was used to assess symptom burden. Fifty-seven patients were included. Of those, fifty-two (91.2%) completed the full 6 weeks of OPR. The mean age was 56.4 (SD 9.2) years, and 58% were female. At completion of OPR, there was a statistically significant mean of a 50 m (95% CI, 29.6-70.7; p < 0.001) increase in 6 MWT. Significant improvements were also seen in all other exercise and strength tests (p < 0.001), accompanied by a significant reduction in the CAT score (mean difference -3.1, p = 0.001). No adverse effects were reported. OPR for surgically resected lung cancer patients was safe and effective and showed high adherence in the current study.

SUBMITTER: Illini O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9322504 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of Outpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients with Surgically Resected Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Real-World Analysis.

Illini Oliver O Valipour Arschang A Gattinger Dietlinde D Petrovic Milos M Fabikan Hannah H Hochmair Maximilian Johannes MJ Zwick Ralf Harun RH

Cancers 20220718 14

Patients with lung cancer frequently suffer from physical deconditioning, low exercise capacity, and reduced quality of life. There is little evidence on the effects of a structured outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation program (OPR) on exercise capacity and symptom load in these patients. We performed a retrospective, single-center analysis of surgically resected lung cancer patients, who underwent a multiprofessional 6-week OPR. The primary endpoint was a change in the six-minute walk test dista ...[more]

PMID: 35884540

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:BackgroundThe adherence to and clinical efficacy of pulmonary rehabilitation in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), particularly in comparison with COPD, remains uncertain. The objectives of this real-world study were to compare the responses of patients with IPF with a matched group of patients with COPD undergoing the same supervised, outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation program and to determine whether pulmonary rehabilitation is associated with survival in IPF.Research questionDo people with IPF improve to the same extent with pulmonary rehabilitation as a matched group of individuals with COPD, and are noncompletion of or nonresponse to pulmonary rehabilitation, or both, associated with 1-year all-cause mortality in IPF?Study design and methodsUsing propensity score matching, 163 patients with IPF were matched 1:1 with a control group of 163 patients with COPD referred for pulmonary rehabilitation. We compared between-group pulmonary rehabilitation completion rates and response. Survival status in the IPF cohort was recorded over 1 year after pulmonary rehabilitation discharge. Cox proportional hazards regression explored the association between pulmonary rehabilitation status and all-cause mortality.ResultsSimilar pulmonary rehabilitation completion rates (IPF, 69%; COPD, 63%; P = .24) and improvements in exercise response were observed in both groups with no significant mean between-group differences in incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) change (mean, 2 m [95% CI, -18 to 22 m]). Pulmonary rehabilitation noncompletion (hazard ratio [HR], 5.62 [95% CI, 2.24-14.08]) and nonresponse (HR, 3.91 [95% CI, 1.54-9.93]) were associated independently with increased 1-year all-cause mortality in IPF.InterpretationThis real-word study demonstrated that patients with IPF have similar completion rates and magnitude of response to pulmonary rehabilitation compared with a matched group of patients with COPD. In IPF, noncompletion of and nonresponse to pulmonary rehabilitation were associated with increased all-cause mortality. These data reinforce the benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with IPF.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Outpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients with Surgically Resected Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Real-World Analysis.

Publications

Effectiveness of Outpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients with Surgically Resected Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Real-World Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets