J Bradley1, F Moran, M Greenstone. 1. Physiotherapy, University of Ulster and Belfast City Hospital, Lisburn Road, Belfast, UK. JM.Bradley@ulst.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology of bronchiectasis may result in the development of dyspnoea and decreased exercise tolerance, both of which can impact on a patient's quality of life and ability to perform activities of daily living. There is little information regarding the benefits of physical training in bronchiectasis: however it is probable that the benefits of physical training in bronchiectasis are at least comparable to benefits demonstrated in other respiratory conditions. There is also no information regarding the effects of non-adherence to prescribed physical training in bronchiectasis. However as in patients with COPD non-adherence may contribute to a deterioration in the patient's condition and conceivably the long term prognosis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to determine whether a prescribed regime of physical training produces improvements or prevents deterioration in physiological and clinical outcomes in bronchiectasis compared to no physical training. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group specialised register and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi randomised controlled trials in which a prescribed regime of physical training are compared to no physical training in patients with bronchiectasis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three studies were identified. One was did not meet the inclusion criteria and two appeared in abstract form only. More comprehensive data will be incorporated into this review once data from those two trials are published, and when further data is made available to the authors of this review. MAIN RESULTS: Results from the two studies published in abstract showed that inspiratory muscle training compared to sham or no inspiratory muscle training improved endurance exercise capacity: Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) 264 metres (95% CI 16.4 to 512 metres). PiMax improved: WMD 25 cms H20 (95% CI 11.6 to 38.4 cms H2O )as did quality of life measured with the CRQ: WMD 12.4 units (95% CI 2.4 to 22.5 units). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This review only provides evidence of the benefits of inspiratory muscle training and provides no evidence of the effect of other types of physical training (including pulmonary rehabilitation) in bronchiectasis.
BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology of bronchiectasis may result in the development of dyspnoea and decreased exercise tolerance, both of which can impact on a patient's quality of life and ability to perform activities of daily living. There is little information regarding the benefits of physical training in bronchiectasis: however it is probable that the benefits of physical training in bronchiectasis are at least comparable to benefits demonstrated in other respiratory conditions. There is also no information regarding the effects of non-adherence to prescribed physical training in bronchiectasis. However as in patients with COPD non-adherence may contribute to a deterioration in the patient's condition and conceivably the long term prognosis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to determine whether a prescribed regime of physical training produces improvements or prevents deterioration in physiological and clinical outcomes in bronchiectasis compared to no physical training. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group specialised register and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi randomised controlled trials in which a prescribed regime of physical training are compared to no physical training in patients with bronchiectasis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three studies were identified. One was did not meet the inclusion criteria and two appeared in abstract form only. More comprehensive data will be incorporated into this review once data from those two trials are published, and when further data is made available to the authors of this review. MAIN RESULTS: Results from the two studies published in abstract showed that inspiratory muscle training compared to sham or no inspiratory muscle training improved endurance exercise capacity: Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) 264 metres (95% CI 16.4 to 512 metres). PiMax improved: WMD 25 cms H20 (95% CI 11.6 to 38.4 cms H2O )as did quality of life measured with the CRQ: WMD 12.4 units (95% CI 2.4 to 22.5 units). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This review only provides evidence of the benefits of inspiratory muscle training and provides no evidence of the effect of other types of physical training (including pulmonary rehabilitation) in bronchiectasis.
Authors: Adam T Hill; Alan F Barker; Donald C Bolser; Paul Davenport; Belinda Ireland; Anne B Chang; Stuart B Mazzone; Lorcan McGarvey Journal: Chest Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Annemarie L Lee; Nola Cecins; Catherine J Hill; Anne E Holland; Linda Rautela; Robert G Stirling; Phillip J Thompson; Christine F McDonald; Sue Jenkins Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2010-02-02 Impact factor: 3.317
Authors: Chris D Bailey; Richard Wagland; Rasha Dabbour; Ann Caress; Jaclyn Smith; Alex Molassiotis Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2010-12-09 Impact factor: 3.317