Effect of a new tele-rehabilitation program versus standard rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

45Citations
Citations of this article
86Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), rehabilitation is recommended, but attendance rates are low. Tele-rehabilitation may be key. We evaluate the effect of a tele-rehabilitation program vs. standard rehabilitation on COPD. A randomized, non-inferiority study comparing eight weeks of tele-rehabilitation (physiotherapist video/chat-consultations and workout sessions with a virtual-autonomous-physiotherapist-agent (VAPA)) and standard rehabilitation in stable patients with COPD. At baseline, after 8 weeks and 3 and 6 months of follow-up, 6 min walk test distance (6MWTD), 7-day pedometry, quality of life, exercise tolerance, adherence, patient satisfaction and safety were assessed. Fifty-four patients (70 ± 9 years, male 57%, FEV1% 34.53 ± 11.67, FVC% 68.8 ± 18.81, 6MWT 376.23 ± 92.02) were included. Twenty-seven patients were randomized to tele-rehabilitation. Non-inferiority in ∆6MWTD at 8 weeks (47.4 ± 31.4), and at 3 (56.0 ± 38.0) and 6 (95.2 ± 47.1) months follow-up, was observed. No significant difference was observed in 7-day pedometry or quality of life. In the intervention group, 6MWTD increased by 25% and 66% at 3 and 6 months, respectively; adherence was 81%; and patient satisfaction was 4.27 ± 0.77 (Likert scale 0–5). Non-inferiority between groups and high adherence, patient satisfaction and safety in the intervention group were found after rehabilitation and at 3 and 6 months of follow-up. Tele-rehabilitation with VAPA seems to be a promising alternative.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cerdán-De-las-heras, J., Balbino, F., Løkke, A., Catalán-Matamoros, D., Hilberg, O., & Bendstrup, E. (2022). Effect of a new tele-rehabilitation program versus standard rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11010011

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free