Chronic Respiratory Disease最新文献

Background: People with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) benefit from pulmonary rehabilitation programs (PRPs), but program attrition is common.

Methods: For people with COPD who presented to tertiary care and appeared appropriate for a PRP, we prospectively mapped their PRP journey, explored factors influencing attendance to pre-program assessment and captured program attrition.

Results: Of the 391 participants, 31% (95% CI 27 to 36) were referred to a PRP (n = 123; age 68 ± 10years, 62 males [50%], FEV₁ 45 ± 19%predicted). Of those referred, 94 (76% [69 to 84]) attended a pre-program assessment. Ex-smokers and those who had a healthcare professional (HCP) explain they would be referred were more likely to attend a pre-program assessment (odds ratio [95%CI]; 2.6 [1.1 to 6.1]; and 4.7 [1.9 to 11.7], respectively). Of the 94 who attended, 63 (67% [58 to 77]) commenced; and of those who commenced, 35 (56% [43 to 68]) completed a PRP. All who completed (n = 35, 100%) were provided at least one strategy to maintain training-related gains.

Conclusion: Attrition occurs throughout the PRP journey. Interactions with HCPs about PRPs positively influenced attendance. Understanding how HCPs can best contextualise PRPs to encourage referral acceptance and uptake is an important area for further work.

Reduced diffusion capacity (DLCO) after COVID 19 pneumonia was reported in hospitalised patients after discharge. Here, we studied the restoration of DLCO over a 24 months period in COVID-19 pneumonia survivors (n = 317), who were categorised into "moderate" cases (no oxygen supply; no need for hospitalisation), "severe" cases (respiratory frequency > 30/min and/or peripheral oxygen SpO2 < 93%), and "critical" cases (respiratory failure and admission into the intensive care unit). COVID-19 pneumonia survivors with a decreased DLCO (<80%) at 3 months (n = 133) were invited for 6- and 24-months follow-up. At 3 months, impairment of DLCO was more severe in critical case (p < .01). Over time, the subgroups showed a similar level of improvement; and, there was no difference in recovery over time between the subgroups. At 24 months, the DLCO did not differ between the subgroups, with a mean DLCO of 73% for all patients. At 24 months, 65% of patients still had a DLCO < 80%, and in 40% of patients DLCO was <70% of predicted. Regardless the initial disease severity, all COVID-19 survivors showed improvement in DLCO during follow-up; however, DLCO had not normalised in the majority of patients with a DLCO <80% 3 months after hospital discharge.

Objectives: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is an effective treatment for chronic respiratory failure (CRF). Patient-centered outcomes need to be evaluated regularly and the S³-NIV questionnaire seems an applicable tool. We translated this short, self-administered questionnaire into a Dutch version and tested its construct validity and reliability.

Methods: An observational study was conducted, including 127 stable long-term NIV users with CRF or complex sleep related breathing disorders due to different underlying diseases: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (25%), slowly progressive neuromuscular disorders (35%), rapidly progressive neuromuscular disorders (12%) and 'other disorders' (28%) including complex sleep apnea and obesity hypoventilation syndrome. Construct validity and reliability were tested.

Results: The Dutch version of the questionnaire was obtained after a translation and back-translation process. Internal consistency of the total score was good (Cronbach's α coefficient of 0.78) as well as for the 'respiratory symptoms' subdomain and the 'sleep and side effects' subdomain (Cronbach's α coefficient of 0.78 and 0.69, respectively). The reproducibility was excellent with an intraclass correlation of 0.89 (95% CI 0.87-0.93). Construct validity was good for the 'respiratory symptoms' subdomain.

Conclusion: The Dutch S³-NIV questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool to evaluate symptoms, sleep, and NIV related side effects in long-term NIV users.

Asthma and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are common respiratory disorders. They share characteristics such as airway obstruction, poor sleep quality, and low quality of life. They are often present as comorbidities, along with obesity, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and allergic rhinitis (AR), which impacts the disease's control. In recent years, there has been discussion about the association between these conditions and their pathophysiological and clinical consequences, resulting in worse health outcomes, increased healthcare resource consumption, prolonged hospital stays, and increased morbidity and mortality. Some studies demonstrate that treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) can have a beneficial effect on both pathologies. This review summarizes the existing evidence of the association between asthma and OSA at their pathophysiological, epidemiological, clinical, and therapeutic levels. It intends to raise awareness among healthcare professionals about these conditions and the need for further research.

Objectives: While dyspnea is the main symptom in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), it is often inadequately evaluated in pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), as it is typically measured using only the impact dimension (ID). However, dyspnea is a multidimensional construct including perception (PD) and emotional (ED) domains. Our work aimed to study the complementarity of dyspnea dimensions and their respective ability to identify different evolutions during PR. Methods: 145 people with COPD attending PR were included in this retrospective study. Dyspnea scores from the modified Medical Research Council scale (ID) and the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile questionnaire (PD/ED), exercise capacity, quality of life at the start (T1) and the end of PR (T2) were collected from existing databases/medical files. The evolution of each dyspnea dimension was evaluated using the delta score between T2-T1. PR response was defined using the minimal clinically important difference. Results: Our results show that each dyspnea dimension was associated with different health-outcomes. Positive correlations were found between PD-ED at baseline and between their T2-T1 delta score (ρ = 0.51; ρ = 0.41 respectively, p < .01), but there was no significant correlation between ID-PD or -ED (p > .05). 51% of the patients did not respond on ID, but 85% of them nonetheless responded on either PD or ED. Finally, 92% of patients responded on at least one dimension after PR. Discussion: Our study emphasizes the significance of assessing each dimension of dyspnea independently and complementary, as dimensions are associated with different elements and evolve differently under PR effects. This approach is crucial to identifying weak points and allows professionals to focus on program elements that most effectively address the specific dimension causing problems.

Objectives: To determine the proportion of people who achieve minimal clinically important differences (MCID) with centre-based or home-based pulmonary rehabilitation and to synthesise data on adverse events.Methods: Cochrane reviews and electronic databases were searched to identify randomised trials comparing centre-based to home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, or either model to usual care, in people with chronic respiratory disease. Primary outcomes were the proportion of participants achieving MCIDs in exercise capacity and disease-specific quality of life. Secondary outcomes were symptoms and adverse events. Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 and GRADE were used to assess the risk of bias and certainty of evidence respectively.Results: Forty-nine trials were eligible. Compared to usual care, a higher proportion of pulmonary rehabilitation participants achieved the MCID for exercise capacity (6MWT: 47% vs 20%, p = 0.11), dyspnoea (43% vs 29%, p = 0.0001), fatigue (48% vs 27%, p = 0.0002) and emotional function (37% vs 25%, p = 0.02), with all of these between group differences statistically significant except for exercise capacity. There were no differences between centre-based and home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in the proportion of participants who achieved MCIDs (34%- 58% across studies). Ninety percent of trials reported no adverse events. Certainty of evidence was low-to- moderate with all outcomes except for CRQ-mastery (centre-based vs home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, or pulmonary rehabilitation vs usual care in COPD), ESWT (pulmonary rehabilitation vs usual care in COPD) and 6MWT (pulmonary rehabilitation vs usual care in bronchiectasis) where evidence was very uncertain.Discussion: Clinically meaningful outcomes are achieved by similar proportions of participants in centre-based and home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, with few adverse events. Reporting of trial outcomes according to MCIDs is necessary for informed decision making regarding pulmonary rehabilitation models.

Purpose: This study aimed to understand factors that health professionals, from a variety of healthcare contexts and countries, believed support remote delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR); and to develop a targeted intervention to support implementation of remote PR. Methods: A 3-phase participatory action-research process was employed, across three study hubs in three countries (NZ, India, USA), representing diverse healthcare delivery contexts. Phase 1 employed focus groups of health professionals working in PR; data were analysed qualitatively with transcripts coded against two implementation frameworks (Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)). Findings informed development of an online toolbox to support delivery of remote PR (Phase 2), which was evaluated using semi-structured interviews (Phase 3). Results: 20 health professionals participated across all study phases. Factors considered to influence implementation of remote PR were consistent across diverse healthcare contexts and related to staffing availability, skills and confidence, and equipment and technology accessibility. An online toolbox provided support for enhancing knowledge and confidence, but was not able to address all implementation barriers. Discussion: Key factors to support clinicians deliver remote PR are common across different healthcare contexts, suggesting broader telerehabilitation implementation strategies may be applicable across healthcare environments.

Background: Noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) is recommended as the initial mode of ventilation to treat acute respiratory failure in patients with AECOPD. The Noninvasive Ventilation Outcomes (NIVO) score has been proposed to evaluate the prognosis in patients with AECOPD requiring assisted NIV. However, it is not validated in Chinese patients.

Methods: We used data from the MAGNET AECOPD Registry study, which is a prospective, noninterventional, multicenter, real-world study conducted between September 2017 and July 2021 in China. Data for the potential risk factors of mortality were collected and the NIVO score was calculated, and the in-hospital mortality was evaluated using the NIVO risk score.

Results: A total of 1164 patients were included in the study, and 57 patients (4.9%) died during their hospital stay. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that age ≥75 years, DBP <60 mmHg, Glasgow Coma Scale ≤14, anemia and BUN >7 mmol/L were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. The in-hospital mortality was associated with an increase in the risk level of NIVO score and the difference was statistically significant (p < .001). The NIVO risk score showed an acceptable accuracy for predicting the in-hospital mortality in AECOPD requiring assisted NIV (AUC: 0.657, 95% CI: 0.584-0.729, p < .001).

Conclusion: Our findings identified predictors of mortality in patients with AECOPD receiving NIV, providing useful information to identify severe patients and guide the management of AECOPD. The NIVO score showed an acceptable predictive value for AECOPD receiving NIV in Chinese patients, and additional studies are needed to develop and validate predictive scores based on specific populations.

Background: The effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the cardiorespiratory fitness of hospitalized and obese patients are of utmost relevance. This study aimed to analyze how hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay together with body mass index affect cardiorespiratory fitness in patients with COVID-19.

Methods: 251 participants (males, n = 118; females, n = 133) were assigned to four groups: non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients (n = 65, age: 45.3 years), hospitalized COVID-19 patients (n = 63, age: 57.6 years), COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU (n = 61, age: 56.9 years), and control group (n = 62, age: 49.8 years). An incremental cardiopulmonary exercise test was performed between 3 and 6 weeks after medical discharge from hospital.

Results: Higher peak oxygen uptake (VO_2peak), ventilatory efficiency and power output were found in ICU patients with normal weight (NW) than in overweight (OW) (Mean difference: 0.1 L·min^-1, -5.5, 29.0 W, respectively) and obese (OB) ICU patients (Mean difference: 0.1 L·min^-1, -5.0, 26.2 W, respectively) (p < .05). In NW, OW and OB participants, higher VO_2peak and power output were observed in control group compared with non-hospitalized (Mean difference: NW: 0.2 L·min^-1, 83.3 W; OW: 0.2 L·min^-1, 60.0 W; OB: 0.2 L·min^-1, 70.9 W, respectively), hospitalized (Mean difference: NW: 0.2 L·min^-1, 72.9 W; OW: 0.1 L·min^-1, 58.3 W; OB: 0.2 L•min^-1, 91.1 W, respectively) and ICU patients (Mean difference: NW: 0.1 L·min^-1, 70.9 W; OW: 0.2 L·min^-1, 91.1 W; OB: 0.3 L·min^-1; 65.0 W, respectively) (p < .05).

Conclusions: The degree of severity of COVID-19, especially identified by hospitalization and ICU stay, together with obesity and overweight were key factors in reducing cardiorespiratory fitness in patients with COVID-19.

Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate how much intermittent hypoxemia and airflow limitation contribute to cognitive impairment in overlap syndrome (OS), which is the coexistence of two common diseases, obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients with OSAHS, COPD or OS, compared with normal controls, to determine the association between sleep apnea/pulmonary function-related indicators and cognitive dysfunction in individuals with OSAHS, COPD or OS.

Results: A total of 157 participants were recruited. Both OSAHS and OS presented lower adjusted Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) scores compared with COPD group. In addition, the MoCA score was significantly lower in COPD group compared with control group. The incidence of cognitive impairment was 57.4% in OSAHS group, and 78% in OS group, which were significantly higher than COPD group (29%) and control group (8.8%). Furthermore, a broader range of cognitive domains were affected in OS group compared with OSAHS group. Elevated levels of oxygen desaturation index (ODI) and/or apnea hypopnea index (AHI) were positively correlated with increased Epworth sleeping scale (ESS) in OSAHS and OS. Forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) were positively correlated with cognitive scores in OSAHS but not in OS. Serum level of hypoxia-inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α) was significantly higher in OS. Logistic regression identified ODI as an independent risk factor for cognitive impairment in OS, while severity of snoring and PEF were independent risk factors in OSAHS.

Discussion: This study revealed significant cognitive impairment in OS, OSAHS and COPD. Sleep-related indicators are warranted in OS patients for detection, differentiation and grading of cognitive impairment, whereas pulmonary functions are warranted in OSAHS patients for detection and early intervention of cognitive impairment.