Late Breaking Abstract - Telerehabilitation compared to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomised controlled equivalence trial
| Autor: | Helen Boursinos, Richard Wootton, Anne E Holland, Paolo Zanaboni, Ajay Mahal, Jennifer A. Alison, Hayley Crute, Aroub Lahham, Angela T Burge, Janet Bondarenko, Amanda Nichols, Christie Mellerick, Leah Jennings, Pawel Czuyprn, Heather MacDonald, Monique Corbett, Christopher Hill, Kathryn Barker, Christine F McDonald, Emma Handley, Bruna Wageck, Narelle S Cox |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Rehabilitation business.industry medicine.medical_treatment Walk distance Respiratory disease medicine.disease law.invention 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine 030228 respiratory system Equivalence Trial Randomized controlled trial law Telerehabilitation medicine Physical therapy Effective treatment Pulmonary rehabilitation 030212 general & internal medicine business |
| Zdroj: | Physiotherapists. |
| DOI: | 10.1183/13993003.congress-2020.4354 |
| Popis: | Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation is an effective treatment for people with chronic respiratory disease, but is delivered to Aims: To compare the efficacy of home-based telerehabilitation (TR) and centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in people with chronic respiratory disease. Methods: Assessor blinded, multi-centre RCT, powered for equivalence. Participants were randomised to centre-based PR or home-based TR. Both programs were 2 sessions/week for 8 weeks. Telerehabilitation used a stationary cycle and group videoconferencing to enable social interaction and real time monitoring. The primary outcome was change in chronic respiratory disease questionnaire dyspnea domain (CRQ-D) at end rehabilitation, with a pre-specified equivalence margin of 2.5 points. Results: We randomised 142 participants to PR (n=72) or TR (n=72). Both groups had clinically important improvements in CRQ-D following rehabilitation (TR mean (95%CI) 4 (2 to 5) vs PR 5 (3 to 7)), however equivalence of TR was not confirmed (mean difference between groups (MD) -1 point (-3 to 1)), with similar findings at 12 month followup (MD -1 point (-4 to 1)). The 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) was equivalent at end rehabilitation (MD -6 metres (-26 to 15) and at 12 months superiority of TR could not be excluded (MD 14 metres (-10 to 38). The proportion of participants who completed ≥70% of prescribed sessions was high (84% TR vs 79% PR). Conclusions: Home-based TR achieved clinically important gains in health-related quality of life, but equivalence to centre-based PR was not confirmed. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|