Comparison of unsupervised home-based pulmonary rehabilitation versus supervised hospital outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Ipek Candemir, Pinar Ergun, Dicle Kaymaz, Neşe Demir, Stephen A. McCurdy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an effective treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but still underutilized. The aim of this study was to compare unsupervised home PR with supervised outpatient PR in terms of various clinical variables in COPD patients. Methods: We conducted retrospective study consisting of 247 patients with COPD who were categorized into three group. 127 patients underwent unsupervised home PR, of whom 60 (47%) completed program (finishers), 67(53%) were lost to follow-up (non-finishers), 120 completed supervised outpatient PR. We compared baseline, post-treatment changes in demographic, clinical variables. Results: Sex, age were statistically similar between groups. Finishers of home PR had higher exercise capacity (p = 0.003), quality of life (p = 0.045), FEV1 (p = 0.001), lower pack-year smoking (p < 0.001) than outpatient PR.After home PR, exercise capacity (p < 0.05), quality of life (p < 0.001), dyspnea(p < 0.05), anxiety (p < 0.001), depression (p < 0.001) were improved except endurance shutte test. Improvements in exercise capacity (p < 0.05), quality of life (p < 0.001), dyspnea (p = 0.023), anxiety (p < 0.001), depression (p = 0.001) scores were different between completed PR programs, in favor of supervised outpatient PR. Non-finishers of home PR had more pack-year smoking than finishers of home PR (p = 0.039); other baseline parameters were similar. Conclusion: Unsupervised home PR was effective in terms of improving exercise capacity, quality of life, dyspnea, psychological status, but less than supervised outpatient programs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalExpert Review of Respiratory Medicine
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Outpatients
Rehabilitation
Lung
Quality of Life
Dyspnea
Exercise
Anxiety
Smoking
Depression
Exercise Therapy
Lost to Follow-Up
Retrospective Studies
Demography
Psychology

Keywords

  • COPD
  • exercise capacity
  • Home PR
  • quality of life

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

@article{e80a453967ba4f45816c37b2602b3766,
title = "Comparison of unsupervised home-based pulmonary rehabilitation versus supervised hospital outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease",
abstract = "Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an effective treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but still underutilized. The aim of this study was to compare unsupervised home PR with supervised outpatient PR in terms of various clinical variables in COPD patients. Methods: We conducted retrospective study consisting of 247 patients with COPD who were categorized into three group. 127 patients underwent unsupervised home PR, of whom 60 (47{\%}) completed program (finishers), 67(53{\%}) were lost to follow-up (non-finishers), 120 completed supervised outpatient PR. We compared baseline, post-treatment changes in demographic, clinical variables. Results: Sex, age were statistically similar between groups. Finishers of home PR had higher exercise capacity (p = 0.003), quality of life (p = 0.045), FEV1 (p = 0.001), lower pack-year smoking (p < 0.001) than outpatient PR.After home PR, exercise capacity (p < 0.05), quality of life (p < 0.001), dyspnea(p < 0.05), anxiety (p < 0.001), depression (p < 0.001) were improved except endurance shutte test. Improvements in exercise capacity (p < 0.05), quality of life (p < 0.001), dyspnea (p = 0.023), anxiety (p < 0.001), depression (p = 0.001) scores were different between completed PR programs, in favor of supervised outpatient PR. Non-finishers of home PR had more pack-year smoking than finishers of home PR (p = 0.039); other baseline parameters were similar. Conclusion: Unsupervised home PR was effective in terms of improving exercise capacity, quality of life, dyspnea, psychological status, but less than supervised outpatient programs.",
keywords = "COPD, exercise capacity, Home PR, quality of life",
author = "Ipek Candemir and Pinar Ergun and Dicle Kaymaz and Neşe Demir and McCurdy, {Stephen A.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/17476348.2019.1675516",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine",
issn = "1747-6348",
publisher = "Expert Reviews Ltd.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of unsupervised home-based pulmonary rehabilitation versus supervised hospital outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

AU - Candemir, Ipek

AU - Ergun, Pinar

AU - Kaymaz, Dicle

AU - Demir, Neşe

AU - McCurdy, Stephen A.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an effective treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but still underutilized. The aim of this study was to compare unsupervised home PR with supervised outpatient PR in terms of various clinical variables in COPD patients. Methods: We conducted retrospective study consisting of 247 patients with COPD who were categorized into three group. 127 patients underwent unsupervised home PR, of whom 60 (47%) completed program (finishers), 67(53%) were lost to follow-up (non-finishers), 120 completed supervised outpatient PR. We compared baseline, post-treatment changes in demographic, clinical variables. Results: Sex, age were statistically similar between groups. Finishers of home PR had higher exercise capacity (p = 0.003), quality of life (p = 0.045), FEV1 (p = 0.001), lower pack-year smoking (p < 0.001) than outpatient PR.After home PR, exercise capacity (p < 0.05), quality of life (p < 0.001), dyspnea(p < 0.05), anxiety (p < 0.001), depression (p < 0.001) were improved except endurance shutte test. Improvements in exercise capacity (p < 0.05), quality of life (p < 0.001), dyspnea (p = 0.023), anxiety (p < 0.001), depression (p = 0.001) scores were different between completed PR programs, in favor of supervised outpatient PR. Non-finishers of home PR had more pack-year smoking than finishers of home PR (p = 0.039); other baseline parameters were similar. Conclusion: Unsupervised home PR was effective in terms of improving exercise capacity, quality of life, dyspnea, psychological status, but less than supervised outpatient programs.

AB - Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an effective treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but still underutilized. The aim of this study was to compare unsupervised home PR with supervised outpatient PR in terms of various clinical variables in COPD patients. Methods: We conducted retrospective study consisting of 247 patients with COPD who were categorized into three group. 127 patients underwent unsupervised home PR, of whom 60 (47%) completed program (finishers), 67(53%) were lost to follow-up (non-finishers), 120 completed supervised outpatient PR. We compared baseline, post-treatment changes in demographic, clinical variables. Results: Sex, age were statistically similar between groups. Finishers of home PR had higher exercise capacity (p = 0.003), quality of life (p = 0.045), FEV1 (p = 0.001), lower pack-year smoking (p < 0.001) than outpatient PR.After home PR, exercise capacity (p < 0.05), quality of life (p < 0.001), dyspnea(p < 0.05), anxiety (p < 0.001), depression (p < 0.001) were improved except endurance shutte test. Improvements in exercise capacity (p < 0.05), quality of life (p < 0.001), dyspnea (p = 0.023), anxiety (p < 0.001), depression (p = 0.001) scores were different between completed PR programs, in favor of supervised outpatient PR. Non-finishers of home PR had more pack-year smoking than finishers of home PR (p = 0.039); other baseline parameters were similar. Conclusion: Unsupervised home PR was effective in terms of improving exercise capacity, quality of life, dyspnea, psychological status, but less than supervised outpatient programs.

KW - COPD

KW - exercise capacity

KW - Home PR

KW - quality of life

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074048733&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074048733&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/17476348.2019.1675516

DO - 10.1080/17476348.2019.1675516

M3 - Article

C2 - 31575305

AN - SCOPUS:85074048733

JO - Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine

JF - Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine

SN - 1747-6348

ER -