Back to Search Start Over

Pulmonary Rehabilitation in SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Post-Acute Patients.

Authors :
Reinert, Glenn
Müller, Daniel
Wagner, Pit
Martínez-Pozas, Oliver
Cuenca-Záldivar, Juan Nicolás
Fernández-Carnero, Josué
Sánchez Romero, Eleuterio A.
Corbellini, Camilo
Source :
Diagnostics (2075-4418). Dec2022, Vol. 12 Issue 12, p3032. 20p.
Publication Year :
2022

Abstract

Background: Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) was initially developed for the management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and is now recognized as a core management of COVID-19 patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy of PR in patients with post-acute COVID-19 infection. Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, the Web of Science (WoS), and the Cochrane Library from their inceptions until October 2022, and randomized controlled trials and observational studies were considered. The outcomes measured included dyspnea, physical function, and quality of life. Results: Eleven studies including 677 participants with post-acute COVID-19 were included in this analysis. From a qualitative point of view and analyzing the studies separately, PR improves dyspnea, physical function, and quality of life in patients with post-acute COVID-19. However, in pooling the data of all the studies, no significant changes pre-postintervention, compared to the control, were found among the experimental studies included in the analysis in any outcome measures, due to the high heterogeneity between the studies, as well as no significant improvements being found in the observational studies. A subgroup analysis revealed significant differences in all the included outcomes. Future studies should include the same scale to assess the actual efficacy of PR. Conclusion: From a qualitative analysis point of view, PR is effective in improving physical function, reducing dyspnea, and improving quality of life in patients with post-acute COVID-19. However, an exploratory meta-analysis was performed to evaluate, by subgroups, the efficacy of PR, and positive results were found in favor of PR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
20754418
Volume :
12
Issue :
12
Database :
Academic Search Index
Journal :
Diagnostics (2075-4418)
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
160983207
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12123032