The effect of pre- and post-operative physical activity on recovery after colorectal cancer surgery (PHYSSURG-C): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for colorectal cancer is associated with a high risk of post-operative adverse events, re-operations and a prolonged post-operative recovery. Previously, the effect of prehabilitation (pre-operative physical activity) has been studied for different types of surgery, including colorectal surgery. However, the trials on colorectal surgery have been of limited methodological quality and size. The aim of this trial is to compare the effect of a combined pre- and post-operative intervention of moderate aerobic physical activity and inspiratory muscle training (IMT) with standard care on post-operative recovery after surgery for colorectal cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: We are conducting a randomised, controlled, parallel-group, open-label, multi-centre trial with physical recovery within 4 weeks after cancer surgery as the primary endpoint. Some 640 patients planned for surgery for colorectal cancer will be enrolled. The intervention consists of pre- and post-operative physical activity with increased daily aerobic activity of moderate intensity as well as IMT. In the control group, patients will be advised to continue their normal daily exercise routine. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical recovery 4 weeks post-operatively. Secondary outcomes are length of sick leave, complication rate and severity, length of hospital stay, re-admittances, re-operations, post-operative mental recovery, quality of life and mortality, as well as changes in insulin-like growth factor 1 and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 3, perception of pain and a health economic analysis. DISCUSSION: An increase in moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity is a safe, cheap and feasible intervention that would be possible to implement in standard care for patients with colorectal cancer. If shown to be effective, this lifestyle intervention could be a clinical parallel to pre-operative smoke cessation that has already been implemented with good clinical results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02299596 . Registered on 17 November 2014.

A randomised controlled trial of three or one breathing technique training sessions for breathlessness in people with malignant lung disease.

BACKGROUND: About 90 % of patients with intra-thoracic malignancy experience breathlessness. Breathing training is helpful, but it is unknown whether repeated sessions are needed. The present study aims to test whether three sessions are better than one for breathlessness in this population. METHODS: This is a multi-centre randomised controlled non-blinded parallel arm trial. Participants were allocated to three sessions or single (1:2 ratio) using central computer-generated block randomisation by an independent Trials Unit and stratified for centre. The setting was respiratory, oncology or palliative care clinics at eight UK centres. Inclusion criteria were people with intrathoracic cancer and refractory breathlessness, expected prognosis ≥3 months, and no prior experience of breathing training. The trial intervention was a complex breathlessness intervention (breathing training, anxiety management, relaxation, pacing, and prioritisation) delivered over three hour-long sessions at weekly intervals, or during a single hour-long session. The main primary outcome was worst breathlessness over the previous 24 hours ('worst'), by numerical rating scale (0 = none; 10 = worst imaginable). Our primary analysis was area under the curve (AUC) 'worst' from baseline to 4 weeks. All analyses were by intention to treat. RESULTS: Between April 2011 and October 2013, 156 consenting participants were randomised (52 three; 104 single). Overall, the 'worst' score reduced from 6.81 (SD, 1.89) to 5.84 (2.39). Primary analysis [n = 124 (79 %)], showed no between-arm difference in the AUC: three sessions 22.86 (7.12) vs single session 22.58 (7.10); P value = 0.83); mean difference 0.2, 95 % CIs (-2.31 to 2.97). Complete case analysis showed a non-significant reduction in QALYs with three sessions (mean difference -0.006, 95 % CIs -0.018 to 0.006). Sensitivity analyses found similar results. The probability of the single session being cost-effective (threshold value of £20,000 per QALY) was over 80 %. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that three sessions conferred additional benefits, including cost-effectiveness, over one. A single session of breathing training seems appropriate and minimises patient burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: ISRCTN; TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN49387307; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN49387307 ; registration date: 25/01/2011.

[Cost-consequence analysis of respiratory preventive intervention among institutionalized older people: randomized controlled trial]. / Descripción de los resultados y costes de una intervención preventiva a nivel respiratorio en el anciano institucionalizado: ensayo controlado aleatorizado.

INTRODUCTION: The institutionalized elderly with functional impairment show a greater decline in respiratory muscle (RM) function. The aims of the study are to evaluate outcomes and costs of RM training using Pranayama in institutionalized elderly people with functional impairment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted on institutionalized elderly people with walking limitation (n=54). The intervention consisted of 6 weeks of Pranayama RM training (5 times/week). The outcomes were measured at 4 time points, and were related to RM function: the maximum respiratory pressures and the maximum voluntary ventilation. Perceived satisfaction in the experimental group (EG) was assessed by means of an ad hoc questionnaire. Direct and indirect costs were estimated from the social perspective. RESULTS: The GE showed a significant improvement related with strength (maximum respiratory pressures) and endurance (maximum voluntary ventilation) of RM. Moreover, 92% of the EG reported a high satisfaction. The total social costs, direct and indirect, amounted to Euro 21,678. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation reveals that RM function improvement is significant, that intervention is well tolerated and appreciated by patients, and the intervention costs are moderate.