Introduction: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is beneficial in respiratory disease. Virtual PR (VPR) obviates the need for in person classes, although its effectiveness is not fully established.
Aim: Evaluate the effectiveness of VPR in respiratory disease.
Methods: This retrospective study included patients completing VPR at Royal Brompton Hospital from July 2020 to November 2021. Pre and post-programme completion measures of exercise capacity via one minute sit to stand test (1MSTS), MRC breathlessness scale and post exertional fatigue (PEF) via modified BORG scale were collected.
Results: 72 patients (male: 35) were identified with mean age 64yrs, BMI 27, FEV1% 54, FVC% 76. Significant improvements in Post-VPR 1MSTS and MRC were seen in the combined group. By disease, statistical significance was reached for 1MSTS in COPD, and MRC in ILD. No significant differences in VPR impact were seen between diseases (Table 1).
Table 1: Data presented as median (interquartile range), Paired samples Wilcoxon and Kruskal Wallis tests used, *=P<0.05,? between diseases
|
Combined group (N=72) |
Asthma (n=10) |
Bronchiectasis (n=8) |
COPD (n=26) |
ILD (n=28) |
Change between groups P value | |
| Pre-VPR 1MSTS | 20 (15,23) | 23 (15,27) | 23 (16,32) | 15 (13,19) | 21 (18,29) | <0.01? |
| Change (?) 1MSTS | 2 (-1,8)* | 5 (-1,10) | 2.5 (1,13) | 2 (0,8)* | 2 (-1.5, 7.5) | 0.75 |
| Pre MRC | 4 (3,4) | 3 (3,4) | 3 (3,4) | 4 (4,5) | 4 (2,4) | 0.06 |
| ? MRC | 0 (-1,0)* | -0.5 (1, -1) | 0 (-1, 1) | 0 (1, -1) | 0 (-2, 0)* | 0.38 |
| Pre-VPR PEF | 4 (2,5.5) | 3.5 (1,5) | 3.5 (2,6.5) | 4 (0.5,5) | 3.5 (2,6) | 0.95 |
| ? PEF | 0 (-2,2) | 0 (-2,0) | -0.5 (-2,-2.5) | 0 (-2,3) | -1 (-3,1.5) | 0.85 |
Conclusion: Our study suggests effectiveness of VPR across respiratory diseases. Disease-specific interventions may be needed, this will require a larger prospective study.