Repeat Pulmonary Rehabilitation Programs Confer Similar Increases in Functional Exercise Capacity to Initial Programs

PURPOSE The benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) diminish over 12 to 24 months following program completion. In many jurisdictions, patients may be offered a repeat program if they report a decrement in exercise capacity. The aim of this study was to compare measures of functional exercise capacity collected during initial and repeat PR programs. METHODS A retrospective medical record review was conducted for patients who completed a minimum of 4 consecutive weeks of inpatient PR at our facility in 2001. Measures included the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) and time to symptom limitation during an endurance walk (EWT) collected prior to and on completion of the initial PR program (year 2001) and, where possible, the first repeat program completed between years 2001 and 2006. RESULTS Of 76 patients (forced expiratory volume in 1 second = 40 ± 19% predicted; 34 males), 17 repeated PR 25.1 ± 18.4 months after the 2001 program. Change in the 6MWD during the initial program was 37.1 m greater in repeaters than in nonrepeaters (P = .036). In repeaters, the 6MWD measured before commencing the repeat PR program was 45.1 ± 63.7 m lower than the 6MWD measured prior to the initial PR program (P = .013). Improvements in the 6MWD (90.6 ± 70.0 m vs 78.4 ± 83.8 m; P = .43) and the EWT (21 ± 11 minutes vs 21 ± 11 minutes; P = .87) were similar between the initial and repeat programs. CONCLUSION Similar gains in functional exercise capacity were achieved on completion of initial and repeat PR programs. The large decrement in the 6MWD between PR programs spaced 25 months apart suggests that a shorter time period is needed between programs.

[1]  N. Ambrosino,et al.  Seven-year time course of lung function, symptoms, health-related quality of life, and exercise tolerance in COPD patients undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation programs. , 2007, Respiratory medicine.

[2]  Richard Casaburi,et al.  Pulmonary Rehabilitation: Joint ACCP/AACVPR Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. , 2007, Chest.

[3]  D. Brooks,et al.  Characterization of pulmonary rehabilitation programs in Canada in 2005. , 2007, Canadian respiratory journal.

[4]  Thierry Troosters,et al.  American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement on pulmonary rehabilitation. , 2006, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[5]  S. Jenkins,et al.  Maintaining exercise capacity and quality of life following pulmonary rehabilitation , 2006, Respirology.

[6]  Robert A Wise,et al.  Six-minute walk distance in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: reproducibility and effect of walking course layout and length. , 2003, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[7]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Maintenance after pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic lung disease: a randomized trial. , 2003, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[8]  D. Brooks,et al.  The effect of postrehabilitation programmes among individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease , 2002, European Respiratory Journal.

[9]  N. Ambrosino,et al.  Is it really useful to repeat outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programs in patients with chronic airway obstruction? A 2-year controlled study. , 2001, Chest.

[10]  N. Payne,et al.  Results at 1 year of outpatient multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomised controlled trial , 2000, The Lancet.

[11]  H. Folgering,et al.  Pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. , 1998, The European respiratory journal.

[12]  John L. Hankinson,et al.  Standardization of Spirometry, 1994 Update. American Thoracic Society. , 1995, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[13]  M. Becklake,et al.  Respiratory function tests; normal values at median altitudes and the prediction of normal results. , 1959, American review of tuberculosis.