No abstract

BackgroundImprovements in ventilatory mechanics with tiotropium increases exercise tolerance during pulmonary rehabilitation. We wondered whether tiotropium also increased physical activities outside of pulmonary rehabilitation.MethodsCOPD patients participating in 8 weeks of pulmonary rehabilitation were studied in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of tiotropium 18 μg daily (tiotropium = 47, placebo = 44). Study drug was administered for 5 weeks prior to, 8 weeks during, and 12 weeks following pulmonary rehabilitation. Patients completed a questionnaire documenting participation in pre-defined activities outside of pulmonary rehabilitation during the 2 weeks prior to each visit. Patients who submitted an activity questionnaire at week 4 and on at least one subsequent visit were included in the analysis. For each patient, the number of sessions was multiplied with the duration of each activity and then summed to give overall activity duration.ResultsPatients (n = 46) had mean age of 67 years, mean baseline FEV1 of 0.84 L (33% predicted). Mean (SE) increase in duration of activities (minutes during 2 weeks prior to each visit) from week 4 (prior to PR) to week 13 (end of PR) was 145 (84) minutes with tiotropium and 66 (96) minutes with placebo. The increase from week 4 to week 25 (end of follow-up) was 262 (96) and 60 (93) minutes for the respective groups. Increases in activity duration from week 4 to weeks 17, 21, and 25 were statistically significant with tiotropium. No statistical differences over time were observed within the placebo-treated group and differences between groups were not significant.ConclusionsTiotropium appears to amplify the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation as seen by increases in patient self-reported participation in physical activities.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Despite the increasing use of high flow nasal cannula oxygenation systems (HFNC) in clinical practice, little is known about its role in all cause respiratory failure as compared to traditional non-invasive ventilation (BiPAP). Furthermore, the effect of HFNC on mortality is unknown. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 49,853 patients with respiratory failure treated with non-invasive respiratory support (HFNC or BiPAP) and/or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) between 2017 and 2018. Results: Patients initially treated with HFNC who underwent subsequent intubation and IMV had a higher mortality rate as compared to patients who were initially treated with BiPAP and underwent subsequent intubation and IMV (34.8% vs 26.3%, p < 0.0001, OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.26,1.76). Patients first treated with HFNC who underwent subsequent intubation and IMV had a significantly increased mortality compared to patients who underwent immediate intubation and IMV (34.8% vs. 21.5%, p ≤ 0.0001, OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.67, 2.27). Stratified based on ICD-10 diagnosis, patients with a diagnosis of COPD exacerbation or heart failure treated with HFNC and subsequent intubation and IMV had higher mortality as compared to those treated with immediate IMV alone. This trend did not hold true for patients with a diagnosis of pneumonia. Conclusion: In a real-world retrospective analysis, use of HFNC was associated with increased mortality as compared to BiPAP and IMV alone. Further study is needed to confirm these associations.