The one minute sit-to-stand test is a valuable alternative to 6MWT to estimate functional exercise performance in COPD patients. The cardiorespiratory demand is different between both tests although the variation of dypsnea is similar. No learning effect was observed for STST.
Although recommended by international guidelines, the benefit of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) in addition to rehabilitation remains uncertain. The objective was to demonstrate the effectiveness of IMT on dyspnea using Borg scale and multidimensional dyspnea profile questionnaire at the end of a 6-minute walk test (6MWT) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with preserved average maximum inspiratory pressure (PImax) of 85 cm H2O (95% of predicted (pred.) value) and admitted for a rehabilitation program in a dedicated center. In a randomized trial, comparing IMT versus no IMT in 32 COPD patients without inspiratory muscle weakness (PImax >60 cm H2O) who were admitted for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for 3 weeks, we evaluated the effect of IMT on dyspnea, using both Borg scale and multidimensional dyspnea profile (MDP) at the end of the 6MWT, and on functional parameters included inspiratory muscle function (PImax) and 6MWT. All testings were performed at the start and the end of PR. In unadjusted analysis, IMT was not found to be associated with an improvement of either dyspnea or PImax. After adjustment on confounders (initial Borg score) and variables of interaction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)), we found a trend toward an improvement of "dyspnea sensory intensity", items from MDP and a significant improvement on the variation in the 2 items of MDP ("tight or constricted" and "breathing a lot"). In the subgroup of patients with FEV1 < 50% pred., 5 items of MDP were significantly improved, whereas no benefit was observed in patients with FEV1 > 50% pred. IMT did not significantly improve dyspnea or functional parameter in COPD patients with PImax > 60 cm H2O. However, in the subgroup of patients with FEV1 < 50% pred., MDP was significantly improved.
Background: The validity and reproducibility of the 6-minute stepper test (6MST) have already been demonstrated in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the responsiveness of the 6MST to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in patients with COPD, to determine a minimal important difference (MID) for the 6MST, and to compare the 6MST and the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Methods: Sixty-two patients with COPD were included in a prospective experimental study. Participants underwent a 3-week inpatient PR program. The primary outcome was the change in the number of steps during the 6MST measured before and after PR. The secondary outcome included the change in the 6-minute walking distance (6MWD) pulse oximetry, heart rate, dyspnea, and leg discomfort during the tests measured before and after PR. MID was determined by anchor-based and distribution approaches. Results: After PR, we observed a significant increase in the number of steps during the 6MST (22.5 steps; 95% CI 13.8-31.3; p < 0.0001) and in the 6MWD (26.6 m; 95% CI 17.6-35.5; p < 0.0001). The 6MST and 6MWT were improved by 10.1 and 6.5%, respectively. The number of steps during the 6MST was significantly correlated with the 6MWD before (r = 0.72; p < 0.0001) and after PR (r = 0.66; p < 0.0001). MID was estimated to be around 20 steps. Conclusion: The 6MST appears to be as responsive as the 6MWT in assessing functional improvement during PR in patients with COPD. The 6MST is a low-cost assessment and requires limited space.
IntroductionEighty percent of COPD patients experience dyspnea during activities of daily life (ADL). To the best of our knowledge, the Modified Medical Research Council (MMRC) dyspnea scale is the only validated scale designed to quantify dyspnea during ADL available in the French language. Two other instruments are only available in English versions: the London Chest Activity of Daily Living (LCADL) scale that allows a specific evaluation of dyspnea during ADL and the Dyspnea-12 questionnaire that evaluates the affective (emotional) and sensory components of dyspnea in daily life. The aim of this study was to translate and validate French versions of both LCADL and Dyspnea-12 questionnaires and to determine the reliability of these versions for the evaluation of dyspnea in severe to very severe COPD patients.MethodsBoth translation and cultural adaptation were based on Beaton’s recommendations. Fifty consecutive patients completed the French version of LCADL and Dyspnea-12 and other questionnaires (MMRC, Saint George’s Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ], Hospital Anxiety and Depression [HAD]), at a 2-week interval. Internal consistency, validity, and reliability of LCADL and Dyspnea-12 were evaluated.ResultsThe French version of LCADL and Dyspnea-12 demonstrated good internal consistency with Cronbach’s α of, respectively, 0.84 and 0.91. LCADL was correlated significantly with item activity of SGRQ (ρ=0.55, p<0.001), total score of SGRQ (ρ=0.63, p<0.001), item impact of SGRQ (ρ=0.57, p<0.001), and HAD-depression (HAD-D) (ρ=0.47, p=0.001); and Dyspnea-12 was correlated significantly with MMRC (ρ=0.39, p<0.001), HAD-anxiety (ρ=0.64, p<0.001), and HAD-D (ρ=0.64, p<0.001). The French version of LCADL and Dyspnea-12 demonstrated good test–retest reliability with, respectively, intraclass coefficient =0.84 (p<0.001) and 0.91 (p<0.001).ConclusionThe French versions of LCADL and Dyspnea-12 questionnaires are promising tools to evaluate dyspnea in severe to very severe COPD patients.
Introduction The authors of the international task force about the management of Dyspnoea recommend assessing sensory and affective components of dyspnoea. The Dyspnoea‐12 questionnaire (D‐12) allows to assess both components of dyspnoea. D‐12 is valid and reliable but its sensitivity to pulmonary rehabilitation was not studied. The aim of this study was to estimate the minimal important difference (MID) for D‐12 in COPD patients undergoing a pulmonary rehabilitation programme (PRP). Methods Severe or very severe COPD patients undergoing a PRP were included. Dyspnoea was assessed using D‐12, MMRC dyspnoea scale, London chest of Activity of Daily Living questionnaire (LCADL). Quality of life was assessed using Saint‐George respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ) and COPD assessment Test (CAT); exercise capacity using 6‐Minute walk Test (6MWT) and 1‐minute sit to‐stand test (1STST). The MID was evaluated using distribution and anchor‐based methods. Results Sixty patients (age: 64.4 ± 8.2; FEV1 (%): 28.6 ± 8.1) were included. At the end of the PRP, patients had significantly decreased their dyspnoea measured with D‐12, MMRC, LCADL (D‐12:23.9 ± 8.9 to 17.6 ± 9.4; MMRC: 3 ± 0.7 to 2.2 ± 1.1, LCADL: 38 ± 13.9 to 31.6 ± 11; p < 0.0001). Using the distribution‐based analysis, MID of −2.67 (standard error of measurement) or −4.45 (standard deviation) was found. According to methodology, we could only use SGRQ as anchor. With SGRQ as anchor, the receiver operating characteristic curve identified MID for the change in D‐12 at −6.1 (sensibility: 58%, specificity: 79%). The correlation with SGRQ was modest (r = 0.33), so the calculated MID should be interpreted with caution. Conclusion D‐12 is a good tool to assess the decrease of dyspnoea after PR. We propose MID of −6 points. However, Future estimates of MID for the D‐12 should use anchors that are more strongly correlated with it.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.