Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Supervised pulmonary tele-rehabilitation versus pulmonary rehabilitation in severe COPD: a randomised multicentre trial

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. One-year outcomes in a multicentre cohort study of incident rare diffuse parenchymal lung disease in children (ChILD)

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. β2-Adrenergic genotypes and risk of severe exacerbations in COPD: a prospective cohort study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Midlife cardiorespiratory fitness and the long-term risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Impact of cystic fibrosis on birthweight: a population based study of children in Denmark and Wales

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

RATIONALE: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an effective, key standard treatment for people with COPD. Nevertheless, low participant uptake, insufficient attendance and high drop-out rates are reported. Investigation is warranted of the benefits achieved through alternative approaches, such as pulmonary tele-rehabilitation (PTR).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether PTR is superior to conventional PR on 6 min walk distance (6MWD) and secondarily on respiratory symptoms, quality of life, physical activity and lower limb muscle function in patients with COPD and FEV1 <50% eligible for routine hospital-based, outpatient PR.

METHODS: In this single-blinded, multicentre, superiority randomised controlled trial, patients were assigned 1:1 to 10 weeks of groups-based PTR (60 min, three times weekly) or conventional PR (90 min, two times weekly). Assessments were performed by blinded assessors at baseline, end of intervention and at 22 weeks' follow-up from baseline. The primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was change in 6MWD from baseline to 10 weeks; 134 participants (74 females, mean±SD age 68±9 years, FEV1 33%±9% predicted, 6MWD 327±103 metres) were included and randomised. The analysis showed no between-group differences for changes in 6MWD after intervention (9.2 metres (95% CI: -6.6 to 24.9)) or at 22 weeks' follow-up (-5.3 metres (95% CI: -28.9 to 18.3)). More participants completed the PTR intervention (n=57) than conventional PR (n=43) (χ2 test p<0.01).

CONCLUSION: PTR was not superior to conventional PR on the 6MWD and we found no differences between groups. As more participants completed PTR, supervised PTR would be relevant to compare with conventional PR in a non-inferiority design.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02667171), 28 January 2016.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftThorax
Vol/bind75
Udgave nummer5
Sider (fra-til)413-421
Antal sider9
ISSN0040-6376
DOI
StatusUdgivet - maj 2020

Bibliografisk note

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

ID: 59619641