PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) and survival in a cohort of patients with severe end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who received inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (IPR) from 1995 to 2007. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 815 patients with severe end-stage COPD who received IPR. 6MWDs before and after IPR (pre-6MWD, post-6MWD) were compared to assess whether 6MWD was significantly changed after IPR. The Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed to show the relationship between survival and 6MWD. The age- and or comorbidities-adjusted Cox proportional hazard model was applied to assess association between the survival and the pre-6MWD, post-6MWD, or difference in 6MWD from the pre-6MWD to post-6MWD (Delta6MWD). RESULTS: Baseline demographics demonstrated a median age 74.0 years, mostly women (60.1%), and white (89.9%) patients with significant comorbid diseases who were most recently hospitalized in acute care facilities (95.1%). IPR significantly increased the 6MWD (mean distance change: 86.4 m; 95% confidence interval [CI], 81.5-91.3 m). Pre-6MWD was not significantly associated with survival. However, post-6MWD was significantly associated with age- and comorbidity-adjusted survival (post-6MWD hazard ratio = 1.336; 95% CI, 1.232-1.449 [post-6MWD x m relative to post-6MWD 2x m]), and Delta6MWD was also significantly associated with age-, comorbidities-, and pre-6MWD-adjusted survival (Delta6MWD hazard ratio = 1.337; 95% CI, 1.227-1.457 [Delta6MWD x m relative to Delta6MWD 2x m]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe end-stage COPD, IPR significantly improved 6MWD, and the post-6MWD and Delta6MWD were positively associated with the length of survival.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) and survival in a cohort of patients with severe end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who received inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (IPR) from 1995 to 2007. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 815 patients with severe end-stage COPD who received IPR. 6MWDs before and after IPR (pre-6MWD, post-6MWD) were compared to assess whether 6MWD was significantly changed after IPR. The Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed to show the relationship between survival and 6MWD. The age- and or comorbidities-adjusted Cox proportional hazard model was applied to assess association between the survival and the pre-6MWD, post-6MWD, or difference in 6MWD from the pre-6MWD to post-6MWD (Delta6MWD). RESULTS: Baseline demographics demonstrated a median age 74.0 years, mostly women (60.1%), and white (89.9%) patients with significant comorbid diseases who were most recently hospitalized in acute care facilities (95.1%). IPR significantly increased the 6MWD (mean distance change: 86.4 m; 95% confidence interval [CI], 81.5-91.3 m). Pre-6MWD was not significantly associated with survival. However, post-6MWD was significantly associated with age- and comorbidity-adjusted survival (post-6MWD hazard ratio = 1.336; 95% CI, 1.232-1.449 [post-6MWD x m relative to post-6MWD 2x m]), and Delta6MWD was also significantly associated with age-, comorbidities-, and pre-6MWD-adjusted survival (Delta6MWD hazard ratio = 1.337; 95% CI, 1.227-1.457 [Delta6MWD x m relative to Delta6MWD 2x m]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe end-stage COPD, IPR significantly improved 6MWD, and the post-6MWD and Delta6MWD were positively associated with the length of survival.
Authors: J G Hay; P Stone; J Carter; S Church; A Eyre-Brook; M G Pearson; A A Woodcock; P M Calverley Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 1992-06 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Bartolome R Celli; Claudia G Cote; Jose M Marin; Ciro Casanova; Maria Montes de Oca; Reina A Mendez; Victor Pinto Plata; Howard J Cabral Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-03-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John E Morley; Angela Marie Abbatecola; Josep M Argiles; Vickie Baracos; Juergen Bauer; Shalender Bhasin; Tommy Cederholm; Andrew J Stewart Coats; Steven R Cummings; William J Evans; Kenneth Fearon; Luigi Ferrucci; Roger A Fielding; Jack M Guralnik; Tamara B Harris; Akio Inui; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; Bridget-Anne Kirwan; Giovanni Mantovani; Maurizio Muscaritoli; Anne B Newman; Filippo Rossi-Fanelli; Giuseppe M C Rosano; Ronenn Roubenoff; Morris Schambelan; Gerald H Sokol; Thomas W Storer; Bruno Vellas; Stephan von Haehling; Shing-Shing Yeh; Stefan D Anker Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Esther Dajczman; Rima Wardini; Goulnar Kasymjanova; David Préfontaine; Marc Alexander Baltzan; Norman Wolkove Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2015 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: Robert J Mentz; Phillip J Schulte; Jerome L Fleg; Mona Fiuzat; William E Kraus; Ileana L Piña; Steven J Keteyian; Dalane W Kitzman; David J Whellan; Stephen J Ellis; Christopher M O'Connor Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2012-11-28 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Ali Yazdanyar; Michael M Aziz; Paul L Enright; Daniel Edmundowicz; Robert Boudreau; Kim Sutton-Tyrell; Lewis Kuller; Anne B Newman Journal: J Aging Health Date: 2014-04-02
Authors: Eric Nolen-Doerr; Kent Crick; Chandan Saha; Mary de Groot; Yegan Pillay; Jay H Shubrook; David Donley; W Guyton Hornsby Journal: Cardiopulm Phys Ther J Date: 2018-07
Authors: Pierachille Santus; Linda Bassi; Dejan Radovanovic; Andrea Airoldi; Rita Raccanelli; Francesco Triscari; Francesca Giovannelli; Antonio Spanevello Journal: Pulm Med Date: 2013-01-09
Authors: Ashley S Fulton; Alison M Hill; Marie T Williams; Peter R C Howe; Peter A Frith; Lisa G Wood; Manohar L Garg; Alison M Coates Journal: Trials Date: 2013-04-24 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Bruna V Pessoa; Juliano F Arcuri; Ivana G Labadessa; Joyce N F Costa; Anna C Sentanin; Valéria A Pires Di Lorenzo Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2014 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.377