Article Text

This article has a correction. Please see:

Download PDFPDF
S124 Effects Of Two Adapted Physical Activity Training Programs On Pulmonary Functionality And Exercise Capacity In Patients Affected By Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
  1. AS Delussu1,
  2. A Laudisio2,
  3. C Pedone1,
  4. L Costanzo2,
  5. F Di Meo1,
  6. C Pizzoli1,
  7. S Lubich1,
  8. L Polidori1,
  9. F Paradisi1,
  10. M Traballesi1,
  11. C Pisicchio1,
  12. R Antonelli Incalzi1
  1. 1Fondazione Santa Lucia, IRCCS, Roma, Italia
  2. 2Area Di Geriatria, Università Campus Bio-Medico, Roma, Italia


Introduction It has been reported the efficacy of adapted physical activity (APA) in exercise capacity improvement.1 Nevertheless, there is still no consensus on training modalities and intensities to be prescribed in patients affected by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The aim of the study was to assess the effects of two 16 weeks APA training programs (endurance vs endurance+strength) on respiratory parameters (FVC%, FEV1%, FEV1/FVC%) and exercise capacity (V’O2 peak) immediately after APA training program (first follow up: FU1) and after six months (second follow up: FU2)

Methods Sixty five COPD patients were randomly assigned to endurance training (ET) or to endurance + strength training (EST). All Patients underwent 3 sessions per week. For ET, as upper intensity training limits were considered 40–50% heart rate reserve; for EST training limits were considered 40–50% heart rate reserve and 50% 1RM.2 Before training programs, at FU1 and at FU2, all patients underwent: clinical assessment, respiratory functionality tests, maximal cardiopulmonary test. Repeated measures ANOVA was adopted to assess parameters’ variations. Statistical significance was set for p < 0.05.

Results Thirty-five patients (14M/21F; age 71 ± 9 y; FEV1 61 ± 14% of predicted) completed the ET program; 30 patients (18M/12F; age 74 ± 6 y; FEV1 59 ± 18% of predicted) completed the EST program. In both ET and EST, respiratory parameters did not change. ET FVC%, FEV1%, FEV1/FVC% values at FU1 were 76 ± 14, 61 ± 16, 64 ± 12 respectively; at FU2 76 ± 16, 59 ± 16,61 ± 12. For EST FVC%, FEV1%, FEV1/FVC% values at FU1 were 79 ± 14, 59 ± 16, 58 ± 13 respectively; at FU2 83 ± 12, 64 ± 16,60 ± 13. In ET V’O2 peak showed significant variations: 17.7 ± 3.1, 18.8 ± 3.4, 16.3 ± 3.3, before training, at FU1 and at FU2 respectively (p < 0.0001). In EST: 19.1 ± 4.9, 20.3 ± 5.9, 18.2 ± 5.5, before training, at FU1 and at FU2 respectively (p < 0.008).

Conclusion Both ET and EST produced a significant improvement in exercise capacity (V’O2peak) at FU1. Unfortunately, both ET and EST worsened at FU2 vs FU1. However FU2 data were better than at baseline.


  1. Vogiatzis I. Eur Respir J. 2002 Jul;20:12–9

  2. ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. (2006) 7th Edition

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • Corrections
    BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Thoracic Society