| Literature DB >> 26458936 |
Fang Xi1,2, Zheng Wang3, Yong Qi4, Richard Brightwell5, Peter Roberts6, Angus Stewart7, Moira Sim8, Wei Wang9,10.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of respiratory training (RT) on lung function, activity tolerance and acute exacerbation frequency with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26458936 PMCID: PMC4602020 DOI: 10.1186/s40169-015-0073-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Transl Med ISSN: 2001-1326
Fig. 1Flowchart of participants
Demographic characteristics of the patient population
| Characteristics | Control group (n = 30) | Intervention group (n = 30) | χ2 test* t test |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, year | 73.0 ± 5.8 | 75.4 ± 6.6 | 0.60* | 0.439 |
| Female | 7 | 8 | 0.09 | 0.764 |
| Ex-smokers | 22 | 24 | 0.37 | 0.543 |
| Smoking index (pack year) | 26.2 ± 4.6 | 25.3 ± 4.8 | 0.44* | 0.562 |
| Hypertension | 14 | 12 | 0.27 | 0.603 |
| Coronary artery disease | 7 | 6 | 0.10 | 0.751 |
| Stroke | 4 | 4 | 0.14 | 0.708 |
| Type 2 diabetes | 3 | 4 | 0.001 | 0.974 |
| Numbers of concomitant diseases | 2.3 ± 0.7 | 2.2 ± 1.0 | 0.53* | 0.467 |
| Resting blood gas findings (FiO2 21 %) | ||||
| PaO2 <60 mmHg | 3 | 2 | 0.001 | 0.467 |
| PaCO2 >45 mmHg | 4 | 6 | 0.48 | 0.488 |
| PH <7.35 | 2 | 1 | 0.001 | 0.974 |
| FVC (% of predicted) | 65.3 ± 14.8 | 68.7 ± 15.5 | 1.05* | 0.306 |
| FEV1 (% of predicted) | 43.33 ± 3.6 | 41.9 ± 2.6 | 0.616* | 0.533 |
| 50–80 | 3 | 5 | 0.14 | 0.708 |
| 30–50 | 11 | 10 | 0.07 | 0.791 |
| ~30 | 16 | 15 | 0.07 | 0.791 |
FVC forced vital capacity, FEV1 forced expiratory volume in one-second
The effect of PR on symptoms
| Control group (n = 30) | Intervention group (n = 30) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before rehabilitation | After rehabilitation | Before rehabilitation | After rehabilitation | |
| CAT score | 14 ± 2.4 | 8 ± 2* | 14.6 ± 2.5 | 7.2 ± 1.8* |
| SGRQ score | 42.33 ± 4.6 | 63.66 ± 3.6* | 38.2 ± 3.6# | 59.6 ± 5.4* |
| 6MWT distance (m) | 273 ± 19 | 281 ± 22 | 284 ± 18 | 330 ± 19*,& |
| BODE index | 6 ± 0.44 | 4 ± 0.38* | 6 ± 0.7 | 6 ± 0.5& |
| MMRC score | 2 ± 0.6 | 1 ± 0.8* | 2 ± 0.7 | 1 ± 0.5* |
* P < 0.05 compared with that before rehabilitation. Data are presented as mean ± SD
# P < 0.05 compared with that of the control group before rehabilitation
& P < 0.05 compared with that of the control group after rehabilitation
The effect of the rehabilitation program on lung function
| Control group (n = 30) | Intervention group (n = 30) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before rehabilitation | After rehabilitation | Before rehabilitation | After rehabilitation | |
| FEV1(L) | 1.45 ± 0.17 | 1.43 ± 0.19 | 1.41 ± 0.16 | 1.52 ± 0.16*,& |
| FVC(L) | 2.42 ± 0.19 | 2.45 ± 0.20 | 2.42 ± 0.20 | 2.46 ± 0.19* |
| FEV1/FVC (%) | 60.53 ± 6.68 | 59.53 ± 6.89 | 58.03 ± 6.99 | 60.43 ± 6.88* |
* P < 0.05 compared with that before rehabilitation. Data are presented as mean ± SD
& P < 0.05 compared with that of the control group after rehabilitation