Our aim was to compare a less intensive but longer pulmonary Aim rehabilitation programme (PRP) against a more intensive but shorter PRP.: We carried out an observational, cohort study in a real-life clinical Methods setting in patients primarily with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We compared standard outcomes in patients who were receiving 18 sessions of PRP delivered twice weekly over 9 weeks (Group 1) against similar patients receiving an identical PRP delivered three times weekly over 6 weeks (Group 2). Outcome measures were the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT) and the number of hospital bed-days pre-and post-PRP.: Both groups showed statistically significant and clinically important Results improvements post-PRP. The largest effects were seen immediately post-PRP and waned over the following 12 months. Group 1 showed a larger improvement in ISWT immediately post-PRP (Group 1, +92 m Group 2 versus +64 m ( =0.001), but there were no differences between groups at 6 ( =0.67) p p or 12 months (p=0.96). There were no differences in SGRQ between groups immediately post-PRP ( =0.09) or at 12 months ( =0.78). There were no p p differences between groups in the number of hospital days 12 months prior to PRP versus 12 months post-PRP ( =0.18). p : Twice weekly outpatient, multidisciplinary PRP over 9 weeks is as Conclusion effective as three times weekly PRP over 6 weeks.

1 2 to compare a less intensive but longer pulmonary rehabilitation program (PRP) against a more intensive but shorter PRP. Aim:an observational, cohort study in a real life clinical setting. We compared 95 patients with predominantly COPD, receiving 18 Methods: sessions of PRP delivered twice weekly over 9 weeks (Group 1) versus 149 patients undergoing an identical PRP delivered concurrently by the same staff, three times weekly over 6 weeks (Group 2). Outcome measures include changes in St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT) and number of hospital bed-days immediately post-PRP and 6 and 12 months later.Both groups showed statistically significant and clinically important improvements that were largest immediately post PRP and Results: waned over 12 months. Group 1 and Group 2 changes respectively: ∠†ISWT immediately PRP= +92 m versus +64 m (p=0.001), ∠†ISWT baseline-6 months = + 49 m versus +45m (p=0.67), ∠†ISWT baseline-12 months = +8m versus +35m. (p=0.96).∠†SGRQ immediately post PR = -5.6 versus -9.7 (p=0.09), ∠†SGRQ 6 months = +0.1 versus -5.6 (p=0.02), ∠†SGRQ 12 months = -3.7 versus -5.4 (p=0.78).∠†Days in hospital 6 months prior versus 6 months post-PR: Group 1 = -1.8, Group 2 = -5.7 (p=0.67). ∠†Days in hospital 12 months prior versus 12 months post-PR: Group 1 = +3.7, Group 2 = -3.9 (p=0.18).Twice weekly outpatient, multidisciplinary PRP over 9 weeks is as effective as three-times weekly PRP over 6 weeks. This could Conclusion: allow more flexibility in service provision e.g. running two programs weekly and workforce planning e.g. part-time staff or other duties -without compromising standards. This abstract is funded by: None Am J Respir Crit Care Med 185;2012:A4880 Internet address: www.atsjournals.org Online Abstracts Issue

No abstract