You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Research letters
Relationship between pulmonary rehabilitation and care dependency in COPD
  1. D J A Janssen1,2,
  2. S Wilke1,
  3. D E Smid1,
  4. F M E Franssen1,3,
  5. I M Augustin1,
  6. E F M Wouters1,3,
  7. M A Spruit1
  1. 1 Department of Research & Education, CIRO, Centre of Expertise for Chronic Organ Failure, Horn, The Netherlands
  2. 2 Centre of Expertise for Palliative Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands
  3. 3 Department of Respiratory Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Dr Daisy J A Janssen, Department of Research & Education, CIRO, Centre of Expertise for Chronic Organ Failure, Hornerheide 1, Horn 6085 NM, The Netherlands; daisyjanssen{at}ciro-horn.nl

Abstract

The aims of this study were to explore care dependency before and after pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in patients with COPD (n=331) and to compare the response to PR between care dependent and independent patients. At baseline, 85 (25.7%) patients had a Care Dependency Scale (CDS) score ≤68 points and were considered as care dependent. CDS scores of these patients improved after PR (p<0.001). After PR, CDS score of 38 (44.7%) patients with a baseline CDS score ≤68 points increased to >68 points. Patients with a baseline CDS score ≤68 points or >68 points showed after PR a comparable improvement in COPD Assessment Test, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and 6-min walk distance (all p<0.05).

Trial registration number NTR3416 (The Netherlands).

  • Pulmonary Rehabilitation
  • COPD ÀÜ Mechanisms

https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208836

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors had substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data; drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

    • Funding The CAT study was supported by the Lung Foundation Netherlands (3.4.10.015) and GlaxoSmithKline (SCO115406).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Obtained.

    • Ethics approval The study was approved by the medical ethical committee of the Maastricht University Medical Centre+ (MUMC+), Maastricht, the Netherlands (METC 11-3-070).

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.