RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Point: Center-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation Is the Standard
JF Respiratory Care
FD American Association for Respiratory Care
SP 755
OP 762
DO 10.4187/respcare.11785
VO 69
IS 6
A1 Casaburi, Richard
YR 2024
UL http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/69/6/755.abstract
AB Currently, a major pulmonary rehabilitation focus is on expanding access. At-home rehabilitation is being explored as an in-center pulmonary rehabilitation alternative. It has been asserted that in-home pulmonary rehabilitation confers similar benefits to in-center pulmonary rehabilitation. An extensive database documents that in-center pulmonary rehabilitation confers a range of patient-relevant benefits. Recently, evidence has been presented that in-center pulmonary rehabilitation improves survival, perhaps the most important benefit of all. It can be argued that improvements in physical fitness, assessed as exercise capacity, are mechanistically related to survival improvements. Therefore, in-home rehabilitation must demonstrate exercise capacity improvements similar to those regularly seen in-center to be considered equivalent. A literature search identified 11 studies that compared in-home with in-center pulmonary rehabilitation for COPD that recorded exercise tolerance outcomes. Despite being described as in-home programs, almost all featured prefatory in-center evaluation; some featured in-home visits by rehabilitation professionals. In 6 of the 11 studies, only walking exercise was prescribed. Only 3 included 2-way audio/visual patient-therapist contact. With regard to exercise outcomes; in 3, there was greater in-center group improvement; in 4, outcomes were similar; and, in 4, the in-center group failed to demonstrate clinically important exercise outcome increases; decidedly mixed results. Importantly, in 8 of 11 studies, the 6-min walk test was an exercise outcome. It is argued that the 6-min walk test does not generally elicit physiologically maximum responses and cannot be used to assess exercise capacity improvements. Of the 4 studies that used other exercise outcomes, in 2, exercise endurance increase was similar between in-home and in-center groups; in the other 2, the in-center group had superior improvements. Mixed results indeed! In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that in-home pulmonary rehabilitation yields improvements equivalent to center-based programs in physical function, the outcome likely driving long-term prognosis. Moreover, it needs to be established which of the wide variety of in-home program designs now being offered should be promoted.