| Literature DB >> 35368926 |
Xiangyan Lv1, Yan Zhao1, Yuqin Wu2.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the effects of the training of aerobic function on clinical symptoms and quality of life in patients with medium and advanced lung cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35368926 PMCID: PMC8967532 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6753959
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Comparison of the general data.
| Observed indexes | Control group | Experiment group |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Male | 28 (66.67) | 26 (61.90) | 0.207 | 0.649 |
| Female | 14 (33.33) | 16 (38.10) | ||
| Mean age | 58.31 ± 7.35 | 59.19 ± 7.63 | 0.538 | 0.592 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Adenocarcinoma | 19 (45.24) | 20 (47.62) | 0.048 | 0.827 |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 16 (38.10) | 13 (30.95) | 0.474 | 0.491 |
| Small cell carcinoma | 7 (16.67) | 9 (21.43) | 0.309 | 0.578 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Stage III | 30 (71.43) | 32 (76.19) | 0.246 | 0.620 |
| Stage IV | 12 (28.57) | 10 (23.81) | ||
| Smoking history | 24 (57.14) | 22 (52.38) | 0.192 | 0.661 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| College | 13 (30.95) | 15 (35.71) | 0.214 | 0.643 |
| Middle school | 20 (47.62) | 16 (38.10) | 0.778 | 0.378 |
| Primary school | 9 (21.43) | 11 (26.19) | 0.263 | 0.608 |
Comparison of the PFS scores.
| Evaluation indexes | Control group | Experiment group |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Affective meaning | Before intervention | 5.48 ± 1.29 | 5.55 ± 1.33 | 0.245 | >0.05 |
| After intervention | 4.55 ± 1.04 | 3.19 ± 0.86 | 6.531 | <0.001 | |
| Behavior/severity | Before intervention | 5.24 ± 1.45 | 5.43 ± 1.50 | 0.590 | >0.05 |
| After intervention | 3.95 ± 0.88 | 2.48 ± 0.67 | 8.613 | <0.001 | |
| Cognitive/mood | Before intervention | 4.88 ± 1.04 | 5.10 ± 1.16 | 0.915 | >0.05 |
| After intervention | 3.98 ± 0.92 | 2.83 ± 0.62 | 6.718 | <0.001 | |
| Sensory | Before intervention | 6.14 ± 1.35 | 6.07 ± 1.33 | 0.239 | >0.05 |
| After intervention | 4.29 ± 0.81 | 2.40 ± 0.73 | 11.233 | <0.001 | |
Comparison of the scores of clinical symptoms.
| Evaluation indexes | Control group | Experiment group |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pain | Before intervention | 3.05 ± 0.38 | 3.02 ± 0.47 | 0.322 | >0.05 |
| After intervention | 2.12 ± 0.33 | 1.86 ± 0.35 | 3.503 | <0.001 | |
| Inappetence | Before intervention | 3.38 ± 0.49 | 3.33 ± 0.48 | 0.472 | >0.05 |
| After intervention | 2.21 ± 0.56 | 1.76 ± 0.58 | 3.617 | <0.001 | |
| Insomnia | Before intervention | 3.36 ± 0.48 | 3.38 ± 0.49 | 0.189 | >0.05 |
| After intervention | 2.12 ± 0.49 | 1.69 ± 0.47 | 4.104 | <0.001 | |
| Dyspnea | Before intervention | 3.36 ± 0.53 | 3.33 ± 0.53 | 0.259 | >0.05 |
| After intervention | 2.48 ± 0.51 | 1.71 ± 0.46 | 7.266 | <0.001 | |
Figure 1Comparison of the walking distances of 6MWT. The abscissa indicated before intervention and after intervention, and the ordinate indicated the walking distance of 6MWT (meters). The walking distance of 6MWT in the control group before and after intervention were (358.26 ± 45.23) and (392.19 ± 38.89), respectively. The walking distance of 6MWT in the experiment group before and after intervention were (352.49 ± 45.52) and (445.81 ± 35.05), respectively. The remarkable difference in the walking distance of 6MWT between the two groups after intervention (t = 6.637, P < 0.001).
Comparison of the patients' pulmonary function.
| Evaluation indexes | Control group | Experiment group |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FVC (L) | Before intervention | 2.36 ± 0.39 | 2.42 ± 0.41 | 0.687 | >0.05 |
| After intervention | 2.67 ± 0.58 | 2.98 ± 0.74 | 2.137 | <0.05 | |
| FEV1 (L) | Before intervention | 2.04 ± 0.43 | 2.10 ± 0.37 | 0.685 | >0.05 |
| After intervention | 2.55 ± 0.61 | 2.87 ± 0.53 | 2.566 | <0.05 | |
| FEV1/FVC% (%) | Before intervention | 62.70 ± 2.32 | 63.03 ± 2.47 | 0.631 | >0.05 |
| After intervention | 71.36 ± 3.16 | 79.19 ± 2.69 | 12.228 | <0.05 | |
Figure 2Comparison of the QLQ-C30 scores. The abscissa indicated before intervention and after intervention, and the ordinate indicated the QLQ-C30 score (points). The QLQ-C30 scores in the control group before and after intervention were (72.17 ± 5.53) and (56.36 ± 4.80), respectively. The QLQ-C30 scores in the experiment group before and after intervention were (73.05 ± 5.74) and (48.24 ± 4.03), respectively. The remarkable difference in the QLQ-C30 score between the two groups after intervention (t = 8.396, P < 0.001).