Pulmonary Rehabilitation
A Retrospective Study in Eastern North Carolina
fellow, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Vidant Medical Center, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
Address correspondence to Dr. Som N. Chalise, BSOM 3E–149, 600 Moye Blvd, Greenville, NC 27834 (Chalises14{at}ecu.edu).
fellow, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Vidant Medical Center, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
fellow, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Vidant Medical Center, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
professor, Department of Biostatistics, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
clinical associate professor and attending physician, Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Vidant Medical Center,
East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
BACKGROUND Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an evidence-based measure to benefit chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients.
Many patients have benefitted from our robust university hospital–based PR program. We have objectively assessed the benefit
of our PR program for COPD patients in Eastern North Carolina.
METHODS We used retrospective chart review to collect data from all the patients who completed PR from January 1, 2012 through December
31, 2013. Data collection included quality-of-life scores using short-form 36 (SF-36) and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) to
measure exercise capacity before and after PR. We also collected data on COPD exacerbation frequency 1 year before and 1 year
after PR. The data were analyzed using the statistical software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 22.0.
RESULTS We analyzed data from 51 patients with 4 categories of COPD: mild (n = 2), moderate (n = 12), severe (n = 23), and very severe
(n = 14). The PR program resulted in improvement in 6MWD of an average of 263.8 feet (P & .01) and a decrease in COPD exacerbation frequency by 0.3 events per year (P & .05). There were mixed results for quality-of-life scores.
LIMITATIONS Our study was conducted at 1 center and thus involved a single COPD patient population with limited sample size. We did not
follow patients long term to see whether the benefits were sustained.
CONCLUSIONS Our PR program resulted in a positive impact on exercise capacity, COPD exacerbation rate, and some aspects of quality of
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is defined by the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society
(ERS) as “a preventable and treatable disease state characterized by airflow limitation that is not fully reversible” []. Chronic bronchitis and emphysema fall under COPD. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), COPD
is the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease and cancer. Many evidence-based medications are
known to help qualified COPD patients, including bronchodilators, inhaled steroids, and oxygen inhalation. In addition, there
is growing interest in structured, supervised pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programs. PR comprises supervised exercise training
along with education and psychological support. PR aims to improve the physical and psychological condition of patients as
well as their long-term adherence to health-enhancing behaviors [, ].
According to 2011 vital statistics data, Eastern North Carolina has higher death rates from chronic medical illnesses like
stroke (0.8%), heart disease (12%), diabetes (30%), and cancer (3%), but a lower COPD mortality rate (6.3%) compared to the
rest of the state. PR has proven to be effective in treating COPD patients in multiple studies [-].
Our university-based hospital has a robust PR program. Many patients who complete PR at our center feel that they benefit
however, PR has not previously been studied in Eastern North Carolina. The purpose of this study was to
determine if there was objective improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQOL), 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), and
frequency of COPD exacerbations in our patient population.
Description of the Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program
The PR staff consists of nurses, exercise physiologists, respiratory therapists, a dietician, and a supervising physician.
Each patient's exercise goals are identified during the initial patient interview. The duration, intensity, and progression
of the exercise program depend on the patient's medical history, clinical status, risk stratification, and results of a 6MWD
test. The patient participates in PR 2–3 days per week. Generally, each session lasts 40–85 minutes. We used a combination
of different modes of exercise depending on the patient's goals and physical and orthopedic limitations: treadmill or track
walking, arm ergometer, flexibility exercise, NuStep (recumbent stepper), strength training, arc or elliptical trainer, and
rowing machine. Patients are monitored during the sessions, and they are encouraged to continue specified exercises at home.
In addition to exercise, patients are educated weekly on psychosocial issues including smoking cessation, compliance with
medications, and coping with chronic medical illness. Rehabilitation staff also screen patients for depression and report
symptoms to the referring physician. Although we do not have a formal smoking cessation program, the rehabilitation staff
educates patients about the health benefits of cessation and the hazards of continuing to smoke. If patients are ready to
quit, staff recommend and make referrals to the North Carolina Quitline.
To screen for depression, we used the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) []. We recommend referrals to local support as needed (psychologists, primary care providers, and psychiatrists), and we also
offer participation in stress management sessions within the PR program. The stress management classes are facilitated by
the rehabilitation staff and include guided imagery, breathing retraining techniques, and progressive muscle relaxation. The
psychosocial classes are taught in the rehabilitation facility by representatives from the East Carolina University Department
of Psychology .
Patients graduate from the program after completing 24–32 sessions, achieving the goals specified in their individualized
treatment plan, and adopting a home exercise program.
Study Design
Our study was approved by the East Carolina University institutional review board, and need for subject consent was waived.
Patients were identified by reviewing the PR records. We accessed each chart to confirm the diagnosis of COPD, attendance
at PR, and outcome variables. Data were collected retrospectively by reviewing the electronic medical records of all patients
who completed PR during the period from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013. 6MWD was measured in feet, and HRQOL scores
were assessed by short-form 36 (SF-36) before and after completing PR []. Patients completed these forms before beginning and after completing rehabilitation. SF-36 consists of multiple components,
3 of which we checked in our PR program: social functioning, role evaluation, and mental health. Each component was scored
from 0 (high disability) to 100 (no disability). The score was calculated by a proprietary algorithm that assigned equal weights
to all of the questions []. We also collected data on the frequency of COPD exacerbations during the period 1 year before and 1 year after the completion
of PR. For the purpose of our study, a COPD exacerbation was defined as worsening of COPD symptoms requiring treatment with
steroids and antibiotics or steroids alone. We did not distinguish between COPD exacerbations treated in the outpatient setting
versus those requiring hospitalization.
Selection of Patients
Patients were eligible to participate in the study if they were 18 years of age or older, had a COPD diagnosis based on clinical
criteria and pulmonary function tests, and completed the PR program. Patients were excluded from the study if they did not
have pulmonary function tests for the diagnosis of COPD or they failed to perform PR exercises because of other medical conditions
such as severe osteoarthritis, severe heart failure, or stroke.
Intervention
The intervention for this study was participation in an outpatient PR program. We collected data on the same patients before
they entered the rehabilitation program and again after they graduated. 6MWD and HRQOL were assessed before starting the program
and after finishing the program. COPD exacerbation frequency was calculated 1 year before and 1 year after completion of the
PR program.
Statistical Analysis
The statistical software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 22.0 was used for the analysis of data. Descriptive
statistics were computed using the frequency, cross tables, and comparison of the means procedures of that software package.
Changes in scores were computed as the post-intervention value minus the pre-intervention value. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test
was used for assessing the changes. Based on forced expiratory volume at the end of 1 second (FEV1), we used the Global Initiative
for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) criteria to divide COPD into the following categories: mild (FEV1 80% predicted
or more), moderate (FEV1 50%–79% predicted), severe (FEV1 30%–49% predicted), and very severe (FEV1 29% or less predicted)
[]. The comparison of change scores among these subgroups was computed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. The level for statistical
significance was set at 0.05.
We screened a total of 157 patients who completed PR from January 2012 to December 2013. Of this group, 51 patients met all
of the inclusion criteria. Most of the excluded patients did not complete the rehabilitation program (See ).
View larger version:
Number of Patients Screened, Included, and Excluded
shows the baseline characteristics by COPD severity groups. In our population of 51 patients, 2 had mild disease, 12 had
moderate disease, 23 had severe disease, and 14 had very severe disease. The majority of patients were in the severe group.
Only 2 patients were in the mild group, both of whom were older than 83 years of age. The mean age of all patients included
in the study was 68.0 years. Males predominated except in the severe group, which had slightly more females than males. The
range of FEV1 percent predicted was from 16% to 99%, and the mean was 41.3%.
View this table:
Baseline Demographic Characteristics, by COPD Severity
shows the outcome variables (and their statistical significance) for the different groups before and after PR. All the numbers
shown are means with standard deviations in parentheses. This table shows that, when we combine data from all subjects except
those with mild COPD, PR benefits patients in terms of 6MWD, HRQOL, and COPD exacerbation frequency. The patients with mild
COPD were dropped from this analysis because there were only 2 patients in that group. All the variables were statistically
significant except the role evaluation component of the SF-36.
View this table:
Outcome Variables Before and After Pulmonary Rehabilitation, by COPD Severity
Further, we compared the moderate, severe, and very severe groups to see if any group benefitted more from PR than the other
groups. This comparison revealed no statistically significant differences in improvement, meaning that all groups benefitted
Discussion
COPD is primarily a disease of the lungs, but it also affects other parts of the body including skeletal muscles, thus resulting
in deconditioning []. Although PR does not have a direct effect on lung function or gas exchange [], it affects other body systems to help optimize lung function []. There are different aspects of pulmonary function tests. The most commonly used variable for research purposes is FEV1,
which we used to grade severity of COPD into 4 different categories, as explained previously. PR has been linked to several
health improvements: increased skeletal muscle function and exercise capacity, enhanced HRQOL, decreased dyspnea, and reduced
anxiety and depression associated with COPD [, ]. For this study, we retrospectively analyzed several outcome variables for COPD patients who completed PR at our university
hospital center.
The effects of PR on exercise capacity and HRQOL among COPD patients has been extensively studied. The results of our retrospective
review are consistent with other studies that have shown that baseline severity of COPD is unrelated to the degree of improvement
for the variables we measured [-]. PR did significantly improve 6MWD and most measures of HRQOL when data from all patients were combined (see ). Our finding that there were no significant changes between groups implies that PR yields clinical benefits for all groups.
Some studies have suggested that patients with less severe obstruction have greater improvements in exercise tolerance [], but this was not the case in our study.
Data from other centers showed a mean improvement in 6MWD of 70–190 feet [, , , ]. Mean improvement in 6MWD among patients in our study was greater, at 263.8 feet. The reason for this greater improvement
in 6MWD compared to that demonstrated by other studies is not clear. A possible explanation is that our patients had never
undergone PR, and we know from the National Emphysema Treatment Trial that benefits of PR are significantly greater in patients
without prior rehabilitation experience []. Another possible explanation is the open floor plan of our center. This means that there is not a specific class start
time or stop time, which allows patients who need more rest to take breaks and still complete the prescribed exercise regimen.
It is also possible that the exercise regimen in our program was different from that of other programs. This study was conducted
in our university-based rehabilitation center. It would be interesting to see if the results of this study would be the same
if PR were conducted at our community-based rehabilitation centers.
Of great importance is the statistically significant reduction in the frequency of COPD exacerbations in patients completing
our rehabilitation program. This outcome would likely result in a reduction in health care costs, which is consistent with
the findings of other studies [-]. In one such study by Raskin and colleagues, 128 patients received PR at 11 outpatient centers, and there were 0.25 fewer
hospitalizations in the year following PR []. In another study, the California Pulmonary Rehabilitation Collaborative Group analyzed a total of 522 patients in 9 centers
and demonstrated a significant decline in health care resource utilization 18 months after PR [].
The improvement observed in HRQOL in our study is consistent with the findings of a prior study by Camp and colleagues. Their
study performed both quantitative and qualitative analysis of HRQOL and showed that subjects had improved physical function,
less dyspnea, and a heightened sense of control over their COPD, which resulted in increased confidence and improved emotional
well-being [].
There are some limitations of our study. First, an inherent limitation of this type of study is the absence of a control group.
Second, we did not have long-term follow-up of patients to determine if the benefits of PR were sustained. Lastly, we had
only 2 patients in the mild COPD group, which is likely due to the fact that few patients with mild COPD receive referrals
to the rehabilitation center.
Conclusion
Our study is consistent with several other studies showing that COPD patients substantially benefit from PR in terms of increased
exercise capacity, fewer exacerbations of disease, and improvements in some aspects of HRQOL. We recommend that every COPD
patient with persistent symptoms and exercise limitations be considered for PR. Patients with mild COPD are usually not sent
to PR, although they may benefit from it. Further studies targeting patients with mild COPD are needed to determine the benefit
of PR in this population. It would also be useful to know which exercises are most effective in improving exercise capacity.
The improvement in 6MWD shown in our study was greater than that reported by other institutions.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Vidant Medical Center Cardio Pulmonary Rehabilitation program manager Stacey Greenway for providing patient
lists, assisting in data collection, and helping to write up the structure of the pulmonary rehabilitation program. We would
also like to thank staff of the research program in pulmonary and critical care medicine: MeShall Hills for technical support,
and Dr. Mary Jane Thomassen for correcting the write up of this article.
Potential conflicts of interest. All authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.
References
MacNee W, ATS/ERS Task Force
Standards for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with COPD: a summary of the ATS/ERS position paper. Eur Respir J. ;23(6):932-946.
Wouters E, et al., ATS/ERS Pulmonary Rehabilitation Writing Committee
American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement on pulmonary rehabilitation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. ;173(12):1390-1413.
Spruit MA,
Garvey C, et al., ATS/ERS Task Force on Pulmonary Rehabilitation
An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: key concepts and advances in pulmonary rehabilitation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. ;188(8):e13-e64.
Scharplatz M,
Troosters T,
Walters EH,
Pulmonary rehabilitation following exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. ;(1):CD005305.
Bianchi R,
Gigliotti F,
Romagnoli I, et al.
Impact of a rehabilitation program on dyspnea intensity and quality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respiration. ;81(3):186-195.
McCarthy B,
Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. ;(2):CD003793.
Radloff LS
The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. ;1(3):385-401.
Sherbourne CD
The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. ;30(6):473-483.
Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease website. . Accessed August 9, 2016.
Skeletal muscle dysfunction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a statement of the American Thoracic Society and European
Respiratory Society. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. ;159(4 Pt 2):S1-S40.
Casaburi R,
Casaburi R
Exercise training in chronic obstructive lung disease. In: Casaburi R, Petty TL, eds. Principles and Practice of Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders; :204-224.
Niederman MS,
Clemente PH,
Fein AM, et al.
Benefits of a multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation program. Improvements are independent of lung function. Chest. ;99(4):798-804.
van Ranst D,
Meijer JW,
van't Hul AJ
Outcome of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD patients with severely impaired health status. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. ;6:647-657.
Marshall J,
Predictors of success and failure in pulmonary rehabilitation. Eur Respir J. ;27(4):788-794.
Vagaggini B,
Antonelli S, et al.
Clinical predictors of the efficacy of a pulmonary rehabilitation programme in patients with COPD. Respir Med. ;103(8):1224-1230.
Gumiero F, et al.
Six-minute walking distance improvement after pulmonary rehabilitation is associated with baseline lung function in complex
COPD patients: a retrospective study. Biomed Res Int. ;2013:483162.
Lee SM, et al., National Emphysema Treatment Trial Research Group
The effects of pulmonary rehabilitation in the national emphysema treatment trial. Chest. ;128(6):3799-3809.
Chapman KR,
Mannino DM,
Soriano JB, et al.
Epidemiology and costs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J. ;27(1):188-207.
Geelhoed E,
Jenkins SC
Reduction in hospitalisation following pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD. Aust Health Rev. ;32(3):415-422.
A simple pulmonary rehabilitation program improves health outcomes and reduces hospital utilization in patients with COPD. Chest. ;124(1):94-97.
Spiegler P,
McCusker C, et al.
The effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on healthcare utilization in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the Northeast Pulmonary
Rehabilitation Consortium. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. ;26(4):231-236.
California Pulmonary Rehabilitation Collaborative Group
Effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on dyspnea, quality of life, and healthcare costs in California. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. ;24(1):52-62.
Appleton J,
Quality of life after pulmonary rehabilitation: assessing change using quantitative and qualitative methods. Phys Ther. ;80(10):986-995.
StumbleUpon
10.18043/ncm.77.5.314
North Carolina Medical Journal
>> Full Text
StumbleUpon