ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess whether there are differences in exercise or health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcomes following twice-weekly supervised sessions of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) compared with three times weekly over an 8-wk program in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental, single-center observational study using 198 subjects who completed two supervised PR sessions (intervention group) compared with 208 historical controls who completed three weekly sessions. We assessed between-group differences in outcomes after balancing groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) of propensity scores, followed by regression adjustment. RESULTS: Both groups achieved clinically and statistically significant improvements in exercise and HRQoL following the PR program. After IPTW and regression adjustment, the intervention group had a lower post-PR 6-min walk time by 1.2: 95% CI, -12.9 to 10.5 m ( P = .84), compared with the control group. Although post-PR COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores decreased in both groups, the intervention group had a higher post-PR CAT score by 1.5: 95% CI, 0.37 to 2.66 a.u. ( P = .01), compared with the control group. All other HRQoL measures failed to reach statistical significance. None of the between-group differences reached minimal clinically important differences for COPD. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support current international guidelines for twice-weekly supervised PR sessions combined with unsupervised home exercise sessions. We conclude there is no disadvantage in running a PR program for patients with COPD using twice-weekly supervised sessions compared with three times weekly supervised sessions.
