Bruna S Vian, Lígia S Ratti, Mariangela R Resende, Lucieni de O Conterno, Mônica C Pereira
{"title":"Fully remote versus hybrid supervision of pulmonary telerehabilitation in COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Bruna S Vian, Lígia S Ratti, Mariangela R Resende, Lucieni de O Conterno, Mônica C Pereira","doi":"10.23736/S1973-9087.24.08634-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic have impeded the traditional rehabilitation process, prompting the widespread adoption of remote programs for the recovery of survivors.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of a pulmonary telerehabilitation program (PTRP) in the exclusively remote modality versus the hybrid modality (remote and face-to-face) in patients with persistent respiratory dysfunction following hospitalization for COVID-19 pneumonia, and to compare the functional capacity of patients who participated in a PTRP with those who did not.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A randomised, interventional, prospective clinical trial was conducted. In parallel, an observational cohort study was conducted.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Outpatient rehabilitation clinic and home-based rehabilitation program.</p><p><strong>Population: </strong>Thirty patients post-COVID-19 were randomised into two groups: G1 (fully remote supervision of PTRP) or G2 (hybrid supervision of PTRP). Thirty-seven post-COVID-19 patients were followed up without participating in PTRP (non-intervention group - NIG).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with persistent respiratory dysfunction and reduced functional capacity, as measured by the Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT), after hospitalization for COVID-19 pneumonia, were considered eligible for a PTRP. To assess the efficacy of the PTRP, the primary outcome (I) was distance walked on the 6MWT (6MWD) and the secondary outcome (II) was quality of life as assessed by the SF-36 questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both G1 and G2 demonstrated similar improvement in 6MWD, P<0.001 and quality of life (P<0.05). The IG showed higher 6MWD than the NIG (P<0.001). The increase in 6MWD for the IG was 140.5 m, while for the NIG it was 16.8 m (P=0.002).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The PTRP was found to be a feasible and highly effective intervention for restoring functional capacity and improving quality of life, regardless of the type of supervision. Furthermore, this functional gain was maintained over the long term. In patients with pulmonary dysfunction, participation in the PTRP improved functional capacity compared with those who were simply advised to resume physical activity during recovery.</p><p><strong>Clinical rehabilitation impact: </strong>Telerehabilitation has been demonstrated to be a viable and efficacious alternative to traditional in-person programs in low-income contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":12044,"journal":{"name":"European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.24.08634-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic have impeded the traditional rehabilitation process, prompting the widespread adoption of remote programs for the recovery of survivors.
Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of a pulmonary telerehabilitation program (PTRP) in the exclusively remote modality versus the hybrid modality (remote and face-to-face) in patients with persistent respiratory dysfunction following hospitalization for COVID-19 pneumonia, and to compare the functional capacity of patients who participated in a PTRP with those who did not.
Design: A randomised, interventional, prospective clinical trial was conducted. In parallel, an observational cohort study was conducted.
Setting: Outpatient rehabilitation clinic and home-based rehabilitation program.
Population: Thirty patients post-COVID-19 were randomised into two groups: G1 (fully remote supervision of PTRP) or G2 (hybrid supervision of PTRP). Thirty-seven post-COVID-19 patients were followed up without participating in PTRP (non-intervention group - NIG).
Methods: Patients with persistent respiratory dysfunction and reduced functional capacity, as measured by the Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT), after hospitalization for COVID-19 pneumonia, were considered eligible for a PTRP. To assess the efficacy of the PTRP, the primary outcome (I) was distance walked on the 6MWT (6MWD) and the secondary outcome (II) was quality of life as assessed by the SF-36 questionnaire.
Results: Both G1 and G2 demonstrated similar improvement in 6MWD, P<0.001 and quality of life (P<0.05). The IG showed higher 6MWD than the NIG (P<0.001). The increase in 6MWD for the IG was 140.5 m, while for the NIG it was 16.8 m (P=0.002).
Conclusions: The PTRP was found to be a feasible and highly effective intervention for restoring functional capacity and improving quality of life, regardless of the type of supervision. Furthermore, this functional gain was maintained over the long term. In patients with pulmonary dysfunction, participation in the PTRP improved functional capacity compared with those who were simply advised to resume physical activity during recovery.
Clinical rehabilitation impact: Telerehabilitation has been demonstrated to be a viable and efficacious alternative to traditional in-person programs in low-income contexts.