RESUMO
Introduction: Heart rate recovery (HRR) after exercise is a marker of disease severity and prognosis in cardiovascular and respiratory disorders. More than 30% of adult individuals with asthma may show a slow HRR. Pulmonary rehabilitation improves exercise capacity in individuals with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Aim: The study aimed to evaluate the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on HRR in individuals with asthma as compared to those with COPD. Methods: Retrospective analysis of HRR one minute after the six-minute walking test (6MWT) was performed before and after an exercise training program. The COPD Assessment Test (CAT), Barthel Index-Dyspnea (BI-D), Medical Research Council (MRC) score for dyspnea, and the Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand test (5STS) were also assessed as secondary outcome measures. Results: Slow HRR prevalence was significantly lower in individuals with asthma than with COPD (29.1 vs. 46.7%, respectively: p = 0.003). Post-program HRR did not change in more than 70% of individuals in either population and improved in 16% of both populations, whereas it actually worsened in 12 and 10% of individuals with asthma and COPD, respectively. The outcome measures significantly improved in both populations, irrespective of baseline HRR. Conclusion: In individuals with asthma or COPD, exercise training does not significantly improve HRR.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Asthma is defined by airway inflammation associated with various respiratory symptoms, and pharmacologic treatment is based on inhaled corticosteroids and bronchodilators. Physical activity, educational training, nutritional support, and psychological counseling are considered part of non-pharmacologic treatment; however, studies so far have investigated the effect of single non-pharmacologic treatment. There are few studies that demonstrate the effect of comprehensive pulmonary rehabilitation, but no clear data are available regarding factors that can predict who could benefit the most. Our study aimed to assess the effect of a comprehensive 3-week pulmonary rehabilitation program on exercise tolerance and to identify baseline subject characteristics that may predict a better response to treatment. METHODS: This was a retrospective study. A team planned a pulmonary rehabilitation program: educational support; endurance training; and optional components, such as respiratory exercises and airway clearance techniques. The following data were collected before and after pulmonary rehabilitation: subject characteristics, smoking history, asthma severity, respiratory function and 6-min walk test (6MWT). RESULTS: We collected data on 515 subjects (202 males 39.2%), age, mean ± SD 63.9 ± 10.4 y), with 413 (80.2%) having moderate-to-severe disease; and 455 (88.4%) with stable respiratory symptoms 455 (88.35%). At baseline, the percentage of predicted 6MWT in all subjects categorized by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) steps was in the normal range, except for the subjects at step 5, for which it was significantly lower (P = .01). All subjects showed a significant improvement in exercise tolerance and oxygen saturation, together with a decrease in baseline dyspnea, muscle fatigue, and heart rate after pulmonary rehabilitation. Improvement of 6MWT was statistically significant, irrespective of the GINA categorization. The variables related to the improvement in 6MWT were age (P < .001), smoking habit (P = .034), and baseline 6MWT (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with asthma at any GINA step seemed to benefit from a pulmonary rehabilitation program; analysis of our data highlighted that pulmonary rehabilitation was more beneficial in younger subjects with a smoking history and worse baseline exercise tolerance.
