Twice versus three-times weekly pulmonary rehabilitation in a real-life clinical setting

Abstract

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.

<p>Safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of virtual pulmonary rehabilitation in the real world</p>

“…It consisted of twice weekly sessions for 7 weeks and incorporated both educational and exercise components according to best practice and current guidelines 6,11. We have reported twice weekly sessions over 7 weeks to have equivalent outcomes as three times weekly over 6 weeks 20. Approximately, 7–10 participants attended the hub site for each 7-week program.…”

Exercise and Quality-of-Life Outcomes of Two Versus Three Weekly Sessions of Pulmonary Rehabilitation

“…We speculate that maintaining three weekly contacts is important despite reducing the frequency of in-person sessions, as our data show a slight advantage in HRQoL outcome measures when subjects with COPD met with supportive PR staff three rather than two sessions/wk. The importance of frequency of contact with PR staff in greater HRQoL improvements has also been demonstrated in previously published studies 19–21…”

“…The importance of frequency of contact with PR staff in greater HRQoL improvements has also been demonstrated in previously published studies. [19][20][21] Although we present data from a quasi-experimental study, strengths of our study design include the relatively large numbers of subjects compared with previous similar studies exploring the same question and obtaining an unbiased estimation of treatment effects by weighting groups equally, 13 which accounts for the differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Another strength is that our PR program had remained the same in exercise prescription and educational content over the 4 yr, only differing in the number of supervised sessions/wk.…”

“…19 An observational study comparing two sessions/wk of PR (with a recommended third home session) over 9 wk with three sessions/wk over 6 wk showed a larger improvement in the incremental shuttle walk test in the group receiving two sessions/wk compared with the group receiving three sessions/wk immediately following the PR program, but SGRQ improvements were greater with three sessions/wk. 21 However, these two groups contained subjects with a variety of respiratory diseases (mainly COPD), had different baseline exercise capacities, quality-of-life assessments, social settings, and durations of PR programs, which make it difficult to compare meaningful outcomes between the groups.…”