对于COPD患者,重复肺康复方案是否与第一次一样有效?

IF 0.7 Q4 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM Tuberkuloz ve Toraks-Tuberculosis and Thorax Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.5578/tt.20229802
Hülya Şahin, İlknur Naz
{"title":"对于COPD患者,重复肺康复方案是否与第一次一样有效?","authors":"Hülya Şahin,&nbsp;İlknur Naz","doi":"10.5578/tt.20229802","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Although it is known that the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programs in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) decrease over time, the results of the repeat PR programs are contradictory. Our study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the initial and the repeat PR programs on functional outcomes in COPD patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Thirty two COPD patients who completed a second PR program were included in our retrospective cohort study. Eight-week PR program was applied to the patients twice with at least a one-year interval in between. mMRC Dyspnea Scale, Six-Minute Walk Test, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, 36 Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were performed before and after both programs. The gains from the initial and the repeated programs were compared.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>Six-minute walk distance, dyspnea, and quality of life improved following both programs (p<0.05). Improvements in six-minute walk distance (p= 0.009), dyspnea (p= 0.003), and SGRQ quality of life (p= 0.037 for activity score, p= 0.050 for total score) were found to be significantly higher in the initial PR program.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although many of the gains obtained from the repeated PR programs were similar to the initial PR program, the improvements in walk distance, perception of dyspnea, and quality of life obtained in the initial PR program were higher compared to the repeated PR program.</p>","PeriodicalId":45521,"journal":{"name":"Tuberkuloz ve Toraks-Tuberculosis and Thorax","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the repeated pulmonary rehabilitation program as effective as the first one in COPD patients?\",\"authors\":\"Hülya Şahin,&nbsp;İlknur Naz\",\"doi\":\"10.5578/tt.20229802\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Although it is known that the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programs in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) decrease over time, the results of the repeat PR programs are contradictory. Our study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the initial and the repeat PR programs on functional outcomes in COPD patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Thirty two COPD patients who completed a second PR program were included in our retrospective cohort study. Eight-week PR program was applied to the patients twice with at least a one-year interval in between. mMRC Dyspnea Scale, Six-Minute Walk Test, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, 36 Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were performed before and after both programs. The gains from the initial and the repeated programs were compared.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>Six-minute walk distance, dyspnea, and quality of life improved following both programs (p<0.05). Improvements in six-minute walk distance (p= 0.009), dyspnea (p= 0.003), and SGRQ quality of life (p= 0.037 for activity score, p= 0.050 for total score) were found to be significantly higher in the initial PR program.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although many of the gains obtained from the repeated PR programs were similar to the initial PR program, the improvements in walk distance, perception of dyspnea, and quality of life obtained in the initial PR program were higher compared to the repeated PR program.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45521,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tuberkuloz ve Toraks-Tuberculosis and Thorax\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tuberkuloz ve Toraks-Tuberculosis and Thorax\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5578/tt.20229802\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tuberkuloz ve Toraks-Tuberculosis and Thorax","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5578/tt.20229802","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然众所周知,肺康复(PR)计划对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的影响随着时间的推移而降低,但重复PR计划的结果是矛盾的。我们的研究旨在比较初始PR和重复PR方案对COPD患者功能结局的有效性。材料和方法:我们的回顾性队列研究纳入了32名完成第二次PR计划的COPD患者。对患者进行两次为期8周的PR计划,其间至少间隔一年。在两个项目前后分别进行mMRC呼吸困难量表、6分钟步行测试、医院焦虑和抑郁量表、36项简短问卷调查(SF-36)和圣乔治呼吸问卷调查(SGRQ)。比较了初始程序和重复程序的增益。结果:6分钟步行距离、呼吸困难和生活质量在两种方案后均有改善(p结论:尽管从重复PR方案中获得的许多收益与初始PR方案相似,但与重复PR方案相比,初始PR方案中获得的步行距离、呼吸困难感知和生活质量的改善更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Is the repeated pulmonary rehabilitation program as effective as the first one in COPD patients?

Introduction: Although it is known that the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programs in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) decrease over time, the results of the repeat PR programs are contradictory. Our study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the initial and the repeat PR programs on functional outcomes in COPD patients.

Materials and methods: Thirty two COPD patients who completed a second PR program were included in our retrospective cohort study. Eight-week PR program was applied to the patients twice with at least a one-year interval in between. mMRC Dyspnea Scale, Six-Minute Walk Test, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, 36 Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were performed before and after both programs. The gains from the initial and the repeated programs were compared.

Result: Six-minute walk distance, dyspnea, and quality of life improved following both programs (p<0.05). Improvements in six-minute walk distance (p= 0.009), dyspnea (p= 0.003), and SGRQ quality of life (p= 0.037 for activity score, p= 0.050 for total score) were found to be significantly higher in the initial PR program.

Conclusions: Although many of the gains obtained from the repeated PR programs were similar to the initial PR program, the improvements in walk distance, perception of dyspnea, and quality of life obtained in the initial PR program were higher compared to the repeated PR program.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
9.10%
发文量
43
期刊最新文献
A patient with widespread skin lesions presenting with massive pleural effusion. A perspective on the scope of videoconferencing-based telemedicine in respiratory diseases outpatient clinic. Analysis of one-year follow-up results and treatment costs of patients with PTE in a tertiary care center. Analysis of post-COVID symptoms and predisposing factors for chronic post-COVID syndrome. Characteristics of adverse reactions due to subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy applied between 2011-2021: Single center experience.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1