Supervised versus unsupervised pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with pulmonary embolism: A valuable alternative in covid era

Abstract

The aim of our study was to assess the effect of 8 weeks of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) during unsupervised PR (unSPRgroup) versus supervised PR (SPRgroup) on cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) parameters, sleep quality, quality of life and cardiac biomarkers (NT-pro-BNP). Fourteen patients with PE (unSPRgroup, n = 7, vs. SPRgroup, n = 7) were included in our study (age, 50.7 ± 15.1 years; BMI, 30.0 ± 3.3 kg/m2). We recorded anthropometric characteristics and questionnaires (Quality of life (SF-36) and Pittsburg sleep quality index (PSQI)), we performed blood sampling for NT-pro-BNP measurement and underwent CPET until exhausting before and after the PR program. All patients were subjected to transthoracic echocardiography prior to PR. The SPRgroup differed in mean arterial pressure at rest before and after the PR program (87.6 ± 3.3 vs. 95.0 ± 5.5, respectively, p = 0.010). Patients showed increased levels of leg fatigue (rated after CPET) before and after PR (p = 0.043 for SPRgroup, p = 0.047 for unSPRgroup) while the two groups differed between each other (p = 0.006 for post PR score). Both groups showed increased levels in SF-36 scores (general health; p = 0.032 for SPRgroup, p = 0.010 for unSPRgroup; physical health; p = 0.009 for SPRgroup, p = 0.022 for unSPRgroup) and reduced levels in PSQI (cannot get to sleep within 30-min; p = 0.046 for SPRgroup, p = 0.007 for unSPRgroup; keep up enough enthusiasm to get things done; p = 0.005 for SPRgroup, p = 0.010 for unSPRgroup) following the PR program. The NT-pro-BNP was not significantly different before and after PR or between groups. PR may present a safe intervention in patients with PE. The PR results are similar in SPRgroup and unSPRgroup.