Journals / Eurasian Journal of Pulmonology / 2021 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1

Does the benefit from pulmonary rehabilitation differ between phenotypes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?

Pages
32–40
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Therefore, all COPD patients should be encouraged to participate in PR programs regardless of their phenotypes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a disease caused by airway and/or parenchymal pathology.
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODS: Retrospective data of chronic bronchitis‑ and emphysema‑predominant COPD patients who completed an outpatient 8‑week PR program between the years 2013 and 2017 in the PR unit of our hospital were examined.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, all COPD patients should be encouraged to participate in PR programs regardless of their phenotypes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a disease caused by airway and/or parenchymal pathology. Therefore, some patients inevitably have chronic bronchitis and some patients have emphysema. The current thinking is that exercise affects these two major phenotypes differently. In this study, we investigated the benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in chronic bronchitis‑ and emphysema‑predominant COPD patients. METHODS: Retrospective data of chronic bronchitis‑ and emphysema‑predominant COPD patients who completed an outpatient 8‑week PR program between the years 2013 and 2017 in the PR unit of our hospital were examined. Demographic data (age, sex, body mass index, smoking history, long‑term oxygen therapy, noninvasive ventilation, emergency admissions, and number of hospitalizations) were recorded. The patients were divided into two groups: chronic bronchitis predominant and emphysema predominant. Patients were assigned to the emphysema‑predominant group based on radiology results. Patients were assigned to the chronic bronchitis‑predominant group according to clinical description. The two groups were compared using the recorded data cited above. RESULTS: Of the 146 patients, 85 (58.2%) were assigned to the emphysema‑predominant group and 61 (41.8%) were assigned to the chronic bronchitis‑predominant group. There was no difference between the two groups in age and gender. Pulmonary function test (PFT) parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 s and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO)), arterial blood gas values (pO2 , PCO2 , and SpO2 ), 6 min of walking time, and quality of life scores were significantly improved after PR. However, there was no difference between the emphysema‑ and chronic bronchitis‑predominant groups in terms of the improvements after PR. CONCLUSION: In this study, it was observed that the improvement due to PR seen in COPD patients was independent of phenotype. Therefore, all COPD patients should be encouraged to participate in PR programs regardless of their phenotypes.

🔖

Cite This Article

Anar, C., Karadeniz, G., Polat, G., Büyükşirin, M., Susam, S., Güldaval, F., Ayranci, A., Üçsular, F., Şahin, H., Süneçli, O. (2022). Does the benefit from pulmonary rehabilitation differ between phenotypes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?. Eurasian Journal of Pulmonology, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 1, 32–40. https://ajindex.com/articles/509553

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Spruit MA, Singh SJ, Garvey C, ZuWallack R, Nici L, Rochester C, et al. An official american thoracic society/European respiratory society statement: Key concepts and advances in pulmonary rehabilitation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013;188:e13‑64
  2. Nici L, Zuwallack R. Scope, background and definition of pulmonary rehabilitation. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2011;47:465‑74
  3. GOLD Executive Committee. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Report; 2019
  4. Adeloye D, Chua S, Lee C, Basquill C, Papana A, Theodoratou E, et al. Global and regional estimates of COPD prevalence: Systematic review and meta‑analysis. J Glob Health 2015;5:020415
  5. GBD 2013 Mortality and Causes of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and national age‑sex specific all‑cause and cause‑specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990‑2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 2015;385:117‑71
  6. Corlateanu A, Mendez Y, Wang Y, Garnica RJA, Botnaru V, Siafakas N. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and phenotypes: A state‑of‑the‑art. Pulmonology 2020;26:95‑100
  7. Cheng Y, Tu X, Pan L, Lu S, Xing M, Li L, et al. Clinical characteristics of chronic bronchitic, emphysematous and ACOS phenotypes in COPD patients with frequent exacerbations. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2017;12:2069‑74
  8. Goddard PR, Nicholson EM, Laszlo G, Watt I. Computed tomography in pulmonary emphysema. Clin Radiol 1982;33:379‑87
  9. Kim YS, Kim EY, Ahn HK, Cho EK, Jeong YM, Kim JH. Prognostic significance of CT‑emphysema score in patients with advanced squamous cell lung cancer. J Thorac Dis 2016;8:1966‑73
  10. Sweer L, Zwillich CW. Dyspnea in the patient with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Etiology and management. Clin Chest Med 1990;11:417‑45
  11. Borg GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1982;14:377‑81
  12. ATS Committee on Proficiency Standards for Clinical Pulmonary Function Laboratories. ATS statement: Guidelines for the six‑minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166:111‑7
  13. Polatlı M, Yorgancıoğlu A, Aydemir Ö, Demirci NY, Kırkıl G, Naycı SA, et al. Validity and reliability of Turkish version of St. George’s respiratory questionnaire. Tuberk Toraks 2013;61:81‑7
  14. Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö, Fişek G, Ölmez N, Memiş A. Validity and reliability of Turkish version of short form SF‑36. Turk J Drugs Ther 1999;12:102‑6
  15. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital