Background: Severe COVID-19 infection often leads to impairments requiring pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following the acute phase. Little is known about the efficacy of PR in these patients. We therefore compared post-COVID-19 patients (PG) referred to PR patients with other lung diseases (LG). Methods: 99 PG were admitted to PR. In a prospective design, the results of PG were collected and compared to the results of LG of 2019 (n = 419) according to Functional Independence Measurement (FIM), Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), 6-minute walk test (6-MWT), duration of PR, and Feeling Thermometer (FT). Results: According to age, sex, and CIRS, both groups showed no significant differences. The improvements in the 6-MWT in the pre to post comparison were on average 180 (±101) meters for PG and 102 (±89) meters for LG (p < 0.001). FT showed a significant enhancement for PG of 21 (±14) points and for LG of 17 (±16) points (p < 0.039), while FIM significantly increased by 11 (±10) points in PG and 7 (±8) points in LG (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Comprehensive PR in PG is very effective according to the results in FIM, 6-MWT and FT. Therefore, we recommend PR following severe post-COVID-19 infections.

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following severe and very severe COVID-19 infection is known to be effective, according to typical assessments. However, not all patients benefit from PR to the same extent. This analysis aimed to identify the impact of different factors on PR outcomes in post-COVID-19 patients. Methods: This prospective observational study included 184 post-COVID-19 patients. The achievement of the predicted reference walking distance (6 min walking distance (6-MWD)) served as a parameter with which to identify responders and non-responders to PR. Several parameters (e.g., Functional Independent Measurement (FIM); pulmonary function testing (Forced Vital Capacity, FVC); 6MWD) were assessed in order to estimate their impact on PR success. Logistic regression models and classification and regression trees were used for multivariate analysis. Results: A total of 94 patients (51%) reached their reference 6MWD by the end of PR. FVC (0.95 (0.93–0.97)), 6MWD at admission (0.99 (0.99–1.00)), and FIM motoric (0.96 (0.93–0.99)) correlated with the risk not reaching the reference distance. The most important variable was the 6MWD at admission. Classification and regression tree identified 6MWD ≥ 130 m at admission and FVC predicted of >83% as the strongest predictor for reaching predicted 6-MWD. Conclusion: Post-COVID-19 patients with lower 6MWD, lower motoric FIM scores and lower FVC at admission have a high risk of not reaching their target values of physical performance despite intensive rehabilitation. As well as identifying them, it is of utmost importance to develop optimal PR concepts for these patients.

Objective The COVID-19 pandemic affects a large number of patients. The impact on feasibility and outcome of rehabilitation during COVID-19 actually remains unclear. Nosocomial infection of healthcare workers or hospitalized patients is common, and prevention of nosocomial infections during rehabilitation is challenging. Therefore, we analyzed a cohort of nosocomial infected COVID-19 patients in a single-center inpatient rehabilitation clinic and described performance and outcome. Design The cohort (N = 27) describes patients with nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection while participating in neuromusculoskeletal rehabilitation. Infection was caused by an initially unidentified so-called superspreader. We compared this cohort with all neuromusculoskeletal rehabilitation inpatients of 2019 (comparison group). Normally distributed continuous variables were presented as mean with standard deviation and the t test was used for comparison between groups. Linear regression was used to assess the impact of COVID-19 on Functional Independence Measure at discharge. Results COVID-19 patients were mostly male (66.7%) with an age of 71.5 ± 12.3 yrs. Age, sex, and cumulated comorbidities of the comparison group (n = 786) were not different from the COVID-19 group. A total of 92.6% of COVID-19 patients had a mild or moderate course, two patients had to be referred to acute hospital because of respiratory failure, and one of these patients died in the acute hospital. After implementation of a strict hygiene concept, no further nosocomial COVID-19 infections were detected. The rehabilitation duration was significantly longer in the COVID-19 group (54.2 ± 23.6 days vs. 32.1 ± 17.7 days, P < 0.001). Daily therapy duration was 132.3 ± 44 mins before SARS-CoV-2 infection and reduced to 81.9 ± 27.3 mins during COVID-19 (P < 0.001). After discontinuation of isolation measures, therapy duration increased significantly (99.3 ± 70.2 mins, P < 0.05). The baseline Functional Independence Measure score was higher in the COVID-19 group (91.93 ± 25.64 points vs. 82.98 ± 22.73 points) and Functional Independence Measure improvements were lower in COVID-19 patients than in the 2019 comparison group (6.96 ± 8.96 points vs. 20.3 ± 15.98 points, P < 0.001). COVID-19 infection itself had a strong negative impact on Functional Independence Measure change as identified by regression analysis. Linear regression analysis showed that COVID-19 reduced the Functional Independence Measure at discharge by 8.9 points (95% CI = −14.725 to −3.097, P = 0.003) after correction for Functional Independence Measure at admission, age, sex, and morbidity index at admission. Conclusions COVID-19 had a strong negative impact on rehabilitation benefits as assessed by Functional Independence Measure. Neuromusculoskeletal rehabilitation could be continued, but all patients received less therapy minutes during isolation. After implementation of a strict COVID-19–specific hygiene concept, no further infections were detected.