-
Journal of Thoracic Oncology : Official... Jan 2022Lung cancer screening (LCS) is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Lung cancer screening (LCS) is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS). Nevertheless, patient adherence to recommended intervals varies, potentially diminishing benefit from screening. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient adherence to Lung-RADS-recommended screening intervals. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and major radiology and oncology conference archives between April 28, 2014, and December 17, 2020. Eligible studies mentioned patient adherence to the recommendations of Lung-RADS. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020189326). We identified 24 eligible studies for qualitative summary, of which 21 were suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled adherence rate was 57% (95% confidence interval: 46%-69%) for defined adherence (e.g., an annual incidence screen was performed within 15 mo) among 6689 patients and 65% (95% confidence interval: 55%-75%) for anytime adherence among 5085 patients. Large heterogeneity in adherence rates between studies was observed (I = 99% for defined adherence, I = 98% for anytime adherence). Heterogeneous adherence rates were associated with Lung-RADS scores, with significantly higher adherence rates among Lung-RADS 3 to 4 than Lung-RADS 1 to 2 (p < 0.05). Patient adherence to Lung-RADS-recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical LCS programs in the United States, especially among patients with results of Lung-RADS categories 1 to 2. To improve adherence rates, future research may focus on implementing tailored interventions after identifying barriers to LCS. We also propose a minimum standardized set of data elements for future pooled analyses of LCS adherence on the basis of our findings.
Topics: Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Patient Compliance; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; United States
PubMed: 34624528
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.09.013 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Jul 2021Poor treatment adherence in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma is a global public health concern with severe consequences in terms of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Poor treatment adherence in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma is a global public health concern with severe consequences in terms of patient health and societal costs. A potentially promising tool for addressing poor compliance is eHealth.
OBJECTIVE
This review investigates the effects of eHealth interventions on medication adherence in patients with COPD or asthma.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in the databases of Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Embase for studies with publication dates between January 1, 2000, and October 29, 2020. We selected randomized controlled trials targeting adult patients with COPD or asthma, which evaluated the effectiveness of an eHealth intervention on medication adherence. The risk of bias in the included studies was examined using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The results were narratively reviewed.
RESULTS
In total, six studies focusing on COPD and seven focusing on asthma were analyzed. Interventions were mostly internet-based or telephone-based, and could entail telemonitoring of symptoms and medication adherence, education, counseling, consultations, and self-support modules. Control groups mostly comprised usual care conditions, whereas a small number of studies used a face-to-face intervention or waiting list as the control condition. For COPD, the majority of eHealth interventions were investigated as an add-on to usual care (5/6 studies), whereas for asthma the majority of interventions were investigated as a standalone intervention (5/7 studies). Regarding eHealth interventions targeting medication adherence for COPD, two studies reported nonsignificant effects, one study found a significant effect in comparison to usual care, and three reported mixed results. Of the seven studies that investigated eHealth interventions targeting medication adherence in asthma, three studies found significant effects, two reported nonsignificant effects, and two reported mixed effects.
CONCLUSIONS
The mixed results on the effectiveness of eHealth interventions in improving treatment adherence for asthma and COPD are presumably related to the type, context, and intensity of the interventions, as well as to differences in the operationalization and measurement of adherence outcomes. Much remains to be learned about the potential of eHealth to optimize treatment adherence in COPD and asthma.
Topics: Adult; Asthma; Humans; Medication Adherence; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Telemedicine; Telephone
PubMed: 34313593
DOI: 10.2196/29475 -
International Journal of Chronic... 2021Almost half of the people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) do not adhere to the prescribed treatments and report anxiety and depression as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Almost half of the people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) do not adhere to the prescribed treatments and report anxiety and depression as comorbidities, resulting in higher rates of exacerbations, hospitalizations, and worse clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review provided a synthesis of studies about the relationships between anxiety, depression, and adherence in people affected by COPD.
METHODS
English language publications were searched in the PUBMED, SCOPUS, PsycInfo, Web of Science, PsycArticles, and Cochrane Library databases from December 2020 to March 2021, following PRISMA guidelines. The reference lists of eligible studies and other relevant systematic reviews were also searched. Data extraction and critical appraisal were undertaken by two reviewers working independently. The reference lists of eligible studies and other relevant systematic reviews were also searched. Data extraction and critical appraisal were undertaken by two reviewers working independently.
RESULTS
A total of 34 studies (23 quantitative and 2 qualitative studies, 9 reviews) were included. The relationship between depression and treatment adherence was significant and negative. Adherence to both rehabilitation, psychological, and antidepressant pharmacological treatments in depressed patients was linked to a decreased risk of hospitalization. Moreover, depressed patients compliant with an antidepressant were more likely to adherent to COPD maintenance inhalers. On the other hand, the associations between anxiety and adherence were poorly investigated and high heterogeneity characterized the studies, leading to a weak and variable relationship as well as too few interventions.
CONCLUSION
The systematic review highlights the variability in estimates of the relationship between depression, anxiety, and treatment adherence in COPD. It could be explained by methodological differences across the included studies. This suggests that standardization is critical to improving the precision of the estimates. Recommendations for future research include attention to causal inferences, an exploration of mechanisms to explain the relationships between both anxiety and depression and adherence in COPD, and a comprehensive, systematic approach.
Topics: Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Depression; Humans; Patient Compliance; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
PubMed: 34262270
DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S313841 -
Respiration; International Review of... 2021Chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure induces considerable morbidity and mortality in patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1). This study systematically reviews...
INTRODUCTION
Chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure induces considerable morbidity and mortality in patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1). This study systematically reviews the effects of noninvasive home mechanical ventilation (HMV) on gas exchange, quality of life, survival, and compliance in DM1 patients.
METHODS
A systematic Medline and Embase search was performed (January 1995 to January 2020). Records were screened for eligibility criteria, data were extracted from included studies, and risk of bias was assessed. We present findings mainly using a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight relevant full-text articles were screened for eligibility criteria. Nine studies were included. Randomized controlled trials were not found. Studies had either an observational (n = 8) or interventional (n = 1) design. In the pooled data analysis, HMV showed to improve mean oxygen saturation with 4.8% and decreased mean carbon dioxide values with 3 mm Hg. Compliance varied widely between studies, from no use to more than 12 h per day. Quality of life was not studied extensively, but some studies reported positive effects of HMV on symptoms of chronic respiratory failure. HMV may improve survival in DM1 patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure.
CONCLUSION
This review shows that HMV can improve gas exchange and relieve symptoms with a possible survival benefit in DM1 patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure. Future studies should focus on developing strategies to optimize the timing of HMV initiation and to promote compliance.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Myotonic Dystrophy; Noninvasive Ventilation; Patient Compliance; Pulmonary Gas Exchange; Quality of Life; Respiratory Insufficiency
PubMed: 33965950
DOI: 10.1159/000515453 -
Journal of Zhejiang University....The proportion of recurrences after discharge among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported to be between 9.1% and 31.0%. Little is known about... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The proportion of recurrences after discharge among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported to be between 9.1% and 31.0%. Little is known about this issue, however, so we performed a meta-analysis to summarize the demographical, clinical, and laboratorial characteristics of non-recurrence and recurrence groups.
METHODS
Comprehensive searches were conducted using eight electronic databases. Data regarding the demographic, clinical, and laboratorial characteristics of both recurrence and non-recurrence groups were extracted, and quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted.
RESULTS
Ten studies involving 2071 COVID-19 cases were included in this analysis. The proportion of recurrence cases involving patients with COVID-19 was 17.65% (between 12.38% and 25.16%) while older patients were more likely to experience recurrence (weighted mean difference (WMD)=1.67, range between 0.08 and 3.26). The time from discharge to recurrence was 13.38 d (between 12.08 and 14.69 d). Patients were categorized as having moderate severity (odds ratio (OR)=2.69, range between 1.30 and 5.58), while those with clinical symptoms including cough (OR=5.52, range between 3.18 and 9.60), sputum production (OR=5.10, range between 2.60 and 9.97), headache (OR=3.57, range between 1.36 and 9.35), and dizziness (OR=3.17, range between 1.12 and 8.96) were more likely to be associated with recurrence. Patients presenting with bilateral pulmonary infiltration and decreased leucocyte, platelet, and CD4 T counts were at risk of COVID-19 recurrence (OR=1.71, range between 1.07 and 2.75; WMD=-1.06, range between -1.55 and -0.57, WMD=-40.39, range between -80.20 and -0.48, and WMD=-55.26, range between -105.92 and -4.60, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
The main factors associated with the recurrence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) after hospital discharge were older age, moderate severity, bilateral pulmonary infiltration, laboratory findings including decreased leucocytes, platelets, and CD4 T counts, and clinical symptoms including cough, sputum production, headache, and dizziness. These factors can be considered warning indicators for the recurrence of SARS-CoV-2 and might help the development of specific management strategies.
Topics: Age Factors; Blood Cell Count; CD4 Lymphocyte Count; COVID-19; Cough; Dizziness; Headache; Humans; Patient Discharge; Recurrence; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33843159
DOI: 10.1631/jzus.B2000304 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Mar 2021For perioperative mechanical ventilation under general anesthesia, modern respirators aim at combining the benefits of pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) and... (Review)
Review
Comparison of Volume-Guaranteed or -Targeted, Pressure-Controlled Ventilation with Volume-Controlled Ventilation during Elective Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
For perioperative mechanical ventilation under general anesthesia, modern respirators aim at combining the benefits of pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) and volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) in modes typically named "volume-guaranteed" or "volume-targeted" pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV-VG). This systematic review and meta-analysis tested the hypothesis that PCV-VG modes of ventilation could be beneficial in terms of improved airway pressures (P, P, P), dynamic compliance (C), or arterial blood gases (PO, PCO) in adults undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia. Three major medical electronic databases were searched with predefined search strategies and publications were systematically evaluated according to the Cochrane Review Methods. Continuous variables were tested for mean differences using the inverse variance method and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Based on the assumption that intervention effects across studies were not identical, a random effects model was chosen. Assessment for heterogeneity was performed with the χ test and the I statistic. As primary endpoints, P, P, P, C, PO, and PCO were evaluated. Of the 725 publications identified, 17 finally met eligibility criteria, with a total of 929 patients recruited. Under supine two-lung ventilation, PCV-VG resulted in significantly reduced P (15 studies) and P (9 studies) as well as higher C (9 studies), compared with VCV [random effects models; P: CI -3.26 to -1.47; < 0.001; I = 82%; P: -3.12 to -0.12; = 0.03; I = 90%; C: CI 3.42 to 8.65; < 0.001; I = 90%]. For one-lung ventilation (8 studies), PCV-VG allowed for significantly lower P and higher PO compared with VCV. In Trendelenburg position (5 studies), this effect was significant for P only. This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that volume-targeting, pressure-controlled ventilation modes may provide benefits with respect to the improved airway dynamics in two- and one-lung ventilation, and improved oxygenation in one-lung ventilation in adults undergoing elective surgery.
PubMed: 33808607
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10061276 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Preterm infants and neonates with respiratory conditions commonly require intubation and conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) to maintain airway patency and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Preterm infants and neonates with respiratory conditions commonly require intubation and conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) to maintain airway patency and support their respiration. Whilst this therapy is often lifesaving, it simultaneously carries the risk of lung injury. The use of lung recruitment manoeuvres (LRMs) has been found to reduce the incidence of lung injury, and improve oxygenation and lung compliance in ventilated adults. However, evidence pertaining to their use in neonates is limited, and there is no consensus of opinion as to whether LRMs are appropriate or effective in this population.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of LRMs on mortality and respiratory outcomes in mechanically ventilated neonates, when compared to no recruitment (routine care). SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 13 April 2020), and CINAHL via EBSCOhost (1989 to 13 April 2020). We also handsearched the reference lists of retrieved studies to source additional articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and randomised cross-over studies that compared the effect of LRMs to no recruitment (routine care) in mechanically ventilated neonates.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias in the included studies. When studies were sufficiently similar, we performed a meta-analysis using mean difference (MD) for continuous data and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for key (clinically important) outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies (152 participants in total) in this review. Three of these studies, enrolling 56 participants, contributed data to our prespecified outcomes. Two studies enrolling 44 participants on CMV for respiratory distress syndrome compared a stepwise LRM with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to routine care. Meta-analysis demonstrated no evidence of a difference between the LRM and routine care on mortality by hospital discharge (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.77; low-certainty evidence), incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.07; low-certainty evidence), duration of supplemental oxygen (MD -7.52 days, 95% CI -20.83 to 5.78; very low-certainty evidence), and duration of ventilatory support (MD -3.59 days, 95% CI -12.97 to 5.79; very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence for these outcomes was downgraded due to risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. Whilst these studies contributed data to four of our primary outcomes, we were unable to identify any studies that reported our other primary outcomes: duration of continuous positive airway pressure therapy, duration of neonatal intensive care unit stay, and duration of hospital stay. The third study that contributed data to the review enrolled 12 participants on CMV for respiratory and non-respiratory causes, and compared two different LRMs applied after endotracheal tube suctioning to routine care. It was determined that both LRMs may slightly improve end-expiratory lung volume at 120 minutes' post-suctioning, when compared to routine care (incremental PEEP LRM versus routine care: MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.06; double PEEP LRM versus routine care: MD -0.18, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.02). It was also demonstrated that a double PEEP LRM may slightly reduce mean arterial pressure at 30 minutes' post-suctioning, when compared with routine care (MD -16.00, 95% CI -29.35 to -2.65). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to guide the use of LRMs in mechanically ventilated neonates. Well-designed randomised trials with larger sample sizes are needed to further evaluate the potential benefits and risks of LRM application in this population.
Topics: Bias; Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia; Confidence Intervals; Humans; Incidence; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Oxygen; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn; Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury
PubMed: 33781001
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009969.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Cancer cachexia is a multifactorial syndrome characterised by an ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass, with or without a loss of fat mass, leading to progressive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cancer cachexia is a multifactorial syndrome characterised by an ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass, with or without a loss of fat mass, leading to progressive functional impairment. Physical exercise may attenuate cancer cachexia and its impact on patient function. This is the first update of an original Cochrane Review published in Issue 11, 2014, which found no studies to include.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of exercise, compared with usual care, no treatment or active control, for cancer cachexia in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases to March 2020. We searched for ongoing studies in trial registries, checked reference lists and contacted experts to seek relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought randomised controlled trials in adults with cancer cachexia, that compared a programme of exercise alone or in combination with another intervention, with usual care, no treatment or an active control group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for relevance and extracted data on study design, participants, interventions and outcomes from potentially relevant articles. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was lean body mass and secondary outcomes were adherence to exercise programme, adverse events, muscle strength and endurance, exercise capacity, fatigue and health-related quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and included two Summary of findings tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four new studies in this update which overall randomised 178 adults with a mean age of 58 (standard deviation (SD) 8.2) years. Study sample size ranged from 20 to 60 participants and in three studies the proportion of men ranged from 52% to 82% (the fourth study was only available in abstract form). Three studies were from Europe: one in the UK and Norway; one in Belgium and one in Germany. The remaining study was in Canada. The types of primary cancer were head and neck (two studies), lung and pancreas (one study), and mixed (one study). We found two comparisons: exercise alone (strength-based exercise) compared to usual care (one study; 20 participants); and exercise (strength-based exercise/endurance exercise) as a component of a multimodal intervention (pharmacological, nutritional or educational (or a combination) interventions) compared with usual care (three studies, 158 participants). Studies had unclear and high risk of bias for most domains. Exercise plus usual care compared with usual care We found one study (20 participants). There was no clear evidence of a difference for lean body mass (8 weeks: MD 6.40 kg, 95% CI -2.30 to 15.10; very low-certainty evidence). For our secondary outcomes, all participants adhered to the exercise programme and no participant reported any adverse event during the study. There were no data for muscle strength and endurance, or maximal and submaximal exercise capacity. There was no clear evidence of a difference for either fatigue (4 to 20 scale, lower score was better) (8 weeks: MD -0.10, 95% CI -4.00 to 3.80; very low-certainty evidence) or health-related quality of life (0 to 104 scale, higher score was better) (8 weeks: MD 4.90, 95% CI -15.10 to 24.90; very low-certainty evidence). Multimodal intervention (exercise plus other interventions) plus usual care compared with usual care We found three studies but outcome data were only available for two studies. There was no clear evidence of a difference for lean body mass (6 weeks: MD 7.89 kg, 95% CI -9.57 to 25.35; 1 study, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence; 12 weeks: MD -2.00, 95% CI -8.00 to 4.00; one study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For our secondary outcomes, there were no data reported on adherence to the exercise programme, endurance, or maximal exercise capacity. In one study (44 participants) there was no clear evidence of a difference for adverse events (patient episode report) (6 weeks: risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.07; very low-certainty evidence). Another study assessed adverse events but reported no data and the third study did not assess this outcome. There was no clear evidence of a difference in muscle strength (6 weeks: MD 3.80 kg, 95% CI -2.87 to 10.47; 1 study, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence; 12 weeks MD -5.00 kg, 95% CI -14.00 to 4.00; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence), submaximal exercise capacity (6 weeks: MD -16.10 m walked, 95% CI -76.53 to 44.33; 1 study, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence; 12 weeks: MD -62.60 m walked, 95% CI -145.87 to 20.67; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence), fatigue (0 to 10 scale, lower score better) (6 weeks: MD 0.12, 95% CI -1.00 to 1.24; 1 study, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or health-related quality of life (0 to 104 scale, higher score better) (12 weeks: MD -2.20, 95% CI -13.99 to 9.59; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The previous review identified no studies. For this update, our conclusions have changed with the inclusion of four studies. However, we are uncertain of the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of exercise for adults with cancer cachexia. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials are still required to test exercise alone or as part of a multimodal intervention to improve people's well-being throughout all phases of cancer care. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence as very low, downgraded due to serious study limitations, imprecision and indirectness. We have very little confidence in the results and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from these. The findings of at least three more studies (one awaiting classification and two ongoing) are expected in the next review update.
Topics: Bias; Cachexia; Combined Modality Therapy; Exercise; Exercise Tolerance; Fatigue; Female; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Muscle Strength; Neoplasms; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Patient Compliance; Physical Endurance; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thinness
PubMed: 33735441
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010804.pub3 -
The Journal of Thoracic and... Apr 2022The selection of tidal volumes for 1-lung ventilation remains unclear, because there exists a trade-off between oxygenation and risk of lung injury. We conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The selection of tidal volumes for 1-lung ventilation remains unclear, because there exists a trade-off between oxygenation and risk of lung injury. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine how oxygenation, compliance, and clinical outcomes are affected by tidal volume during 1-lung ventilation.
METHODS
A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. Pooled mean difference estimated arterial oxygen tension, compliance, and length of stay; pooled odds ratio was calculated for composite postoperative pulmonary complications. Risk of bias was determined using the Cochrane risk of bias and Newcastle-Ottawa tools.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies were identified, comprising 3693 total patients. Low tidal volumes (5.6 [±0.9] mL/kg) were not associated with significant differences in partial pressure of oxygen (-15.64 [-88.53-57.26] mm Hg; P = .67), arterial oxygen tension to fractional intake of oxygen ratio (14.71 [-7.83-37.24]; P = .20), or compliance (2.03 [-5.22-9.27] mL/cmH2O; P = .58) versus conventional tidal volume ventilation (8.1 [±3.1] mL/kg). Low versus conventional tidal volume ventilation had no significant impact on hospital length of stay (-0.42 [-1.60-0.77] days; P = .49). Low tidal volumes are associated with significantly decreased odds of pulmonary complications (pooled odds ratio, 0.40 [0.29-0.57]; P < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS
Low tidal volumes during 1-lung ventilation do not worsen oxygenation or compliance. A low tidal volume ventilation strategy during 1-lung ventilation was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative pulmonary complications.
Topics: Acute Lung Injury; Humans; Length of Stay; Respiration, Artificial; Tidal Volume
PubMed: 33518385
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.12.054 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Pulmonary rehabilitation is a proven, effective intervention for people with chronic respiratory diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pulmonary rehabilitation is a proven, effective intervention for people with chronic respiratory diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease (ILD) and bronchiectasis. However, relatively few people attend or complete a program, due to factors including a lack of programs, issues associated with travel and transport, and other health issues. Traditionally, pulmonary rehabilitation is delivered in-person on an outpatient basis at a hospital or other healthcare facility (referred to as centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation). Newer, alternative modes of pulmonary rehabilitation delivery include home-based models and the use of telehealth. Telerehabilitation is the delivery of rehabilitation services at a distance, using information and communication technology. To date, there has not been a comprehensive assessment of the clinical efficacy or safety of telerehabilitation, or its ability to improve uptake and access to rehabilitation services, for people with chronic respiratory disease.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of telerehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; six databases including MEDLINE and Embase; and three trials registries, up to 30 November 2020. We checked reference lists of all included studies for additional references, and handsearched relevant respiratory journals and meeting abstracts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of telerehabilitation for the delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation were eligible for inclusion. The telerehabilitation intervention was required to include exercise training, with at least 50% of the rehabilitation intervention being delivered by telerehabilitation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methods recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias for all studies, and used the ROBINS-I tool to assess bias in non-randomised controlled clinical trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. Comparisons were telerehabilitation compared to traditional in-person (centre-based) pulmonary rehabilitation, and telerehabilitation compared to no rehabilitation. We analysed studies of telerehabilitation for maintenance rehabilitation separately from trials of telerehabilitation for initial primary pulmonary rehabilitation.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 15 studies (32 reports) with 1904 participants, using five different models of telerehabilitation. Almost all (99%) participants had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Three studies were controlled clinical trials. For primary pulmonary rehabilitation, there was probably little or no difference between telerehabilitation and in-person pulmonary rehabilitation for exercise capacity measured as 6-Minute Walking Distance (6MWD) (mean difference (MD) 0.06 metres (m), 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.82 m to 10.94 m; 556 participants; four studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may also be little or no difference for quality of life measured with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -1.26, 95% CI -3.97 to 1.45; 274 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence), or for breathlessness on the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) dyspnoea domain score (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.40; 426 participants; three studies; low-certainty evidence). Participants were more likely to complete a program of telerehabilitation, with a 93% completion rate (95% CI 90% to 96%), compared to a 70% completion rate for in-person rehabilitation. When compared to no rehabilitation control, trials of primary telerehabilitation may increase exercise capacity on 6MWD (MD 22.17 m, 95% CI -38.89 m to 83.23 m; 94 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence) and may also increase 6MWD when delivered as maintenance rehabilitation (MD 78.1 m, 95% CI 49.6 m to 106.6 m; 209 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects of telerehabilitation were noted over and above any reported for in-person rehabilitation or no rehabilitation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that primary pulmonary rehabilitation, or maintenance rehabilitation, delivered via telerehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease achieves outcomes similar to those of traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation, with no safety issues identified. However, the certainty of the evidence provided by this review is limited by the small number of studies, of varying telerehabilitation models, with relatively few participants. Future research should consider the clinical effect of telerehabilitation for individuals with chronic respiratory diseases other than COPD, the duration of benefit of telerehabilitation beyond the period of the intervention, and the economic cost of telerehabilitation.
Topics: Bias; Chronic Disease; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Dyspnea; Exercise Tolerance; Humans; Internet; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Patient Compliance; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration Disorders; Telephone; Telerehabilitation; Videoconferencing; Walk Test
PubMed: 33511633
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013040.pub2