Effectiveness of respiratory rehabilitation in patients with COVID-19: A meta-analysis.

AIM: Examine effectiveness of respiratory rehabilitation and moderating factors on lung function and exercise capacity in post-COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. METHODS: R software 4.0.2 assessed the effectiveness of respiratory rehabilitation adopting the random-effects model and presenting standardised mean differences (SMDs). Heterogeneity was determined by Cochran's Q and I2 . The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and MINORS evaluated quality of the included studies. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search was undertaken in Cochrane, Embase, Ovid-MEDLINE, Scopus, NCBI SARS-CoV-2 Resources, ProQuest, Web of Science and CINAHL until March 2022. RESULTS: Of the 5703 identified studies, 12 articles with 596 post-COVID-19 patients were included. Eleven of our twelve studies had moderate to high quality and one study had high risk of bias assessed with MINORS and RoB 2 tool. Overall, respiratory rehabilitation was effective in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 s (1.14; 95%CI 0.39-1.18), forced vital capacity (0.98; 95%CI 0.39-1.56), total lung capacity (0.83; 95%CI 0.22-1.44), 6-minute walk distance (1.56; 95%CI 1.10-2.02) and quality of life (0.99; 95%CI 0.38-1.60). However, no significant differences were observed for ratio of the forced expiratory volume in 1 s to the forced vital capacity of the lungs, anxiety and depression. Respiratory rehabilitation for post-COVID-19 patients was effective in those without comorbidities, performed four types of exercise programs, frequency ≥3 times/week and rehabilitation time 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory rehabilitation improved lung function, exercise capacity and quality of life in post-COVID-19 patients. The findings suggest rehabilitation programs for post-COVID-19 patients should use multiple respiratory exercise programs with frequency of ≥3 times per week for longer than 6 weeks. IMPACT: These findings will help improve the implementation of respiratory rehabilitation programs for post-COVID-19 patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: Our findings can be used to develop patient-centred respiratory rehabilitation interventions by nurses and clinicians for post-COVID-19 patients. REPORTING METHOD: PRISMA guideline was followed. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Effectiveness of prone position in acute respiratory distress syndrome and moderating factors of obesity class and treatment durations for COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of prone positioning on COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome with moderating factors in both traditional prone positioning (invasive mechanical ventilation) and awake self-prone positioning patients (non-invasive ventilation). RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: A comprehensive search was conducted in CINAHL, Cochrane library, Embase, Medline-OVID, NCBI SARS-CoV-2 Resources, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science without language restrictions. All studies with prospective and experimental designs evaluating the effect of prone position patients with COVID-19 related to acute respiratory distress syndrome were included. Pooled standardised mean differences were calculated after prone position for primary (PaO2/FiO2) and secondary outcomes (SpO2 and PaO2) RESULTS: A total of 15 articles were eligible and included in the final analysis. Prone position had a statistically significant effect in improving PaO2/FiO2 with standardised mean difference of 1.10 (95%CI 0.60-1.59), SpO2 with standardised mean difference of 3.39 (95% CI 1.30-5.48), and PaO2 with standardised mean difference of 0.77 (95% CI 0.19-1.35). Patients with higher body mass index and longer duration/day are associated with larger standardised mean difference effect sizes for prone positioning. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that prone position significantly improved oxygen saturation in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in both traditional prone positioning and awake self-prone positioning patients. Prone position should be recommended for patients with higher body mass index and longer durations to obtain the maximum effect.