Abstract
Severe and critical ill COVID-19 patients frequently need acute care hospitalization including mechanical ventilation at ICU due to acute respiratory distress. A high proportion of these patients will develop ICU-acquired weakness and a need for rehabilitation. However data on rehabilitation outcomes in these patients are scarce and the efficacy of rehabilitation remains essentially unclear. We therefore compared the rehabilitation outcomes between COVID-19 patients with pneumonia and other patients with common pneumonia to assess their rehabilitation efficacies.
We retrospectively compared the performances of six-min walk test (6MWT), chronic respiratory questionnaire (CRQ), and functional independence measure (FIM) at the discharge from pulmonary rehabilitation between 51 Covid-19 patients and 51 patients with common pneumonia using linear regression controlled for baseline values at entrance, age, sex and cumulative Illness rating scale. Fisher exact test was applied to test whether the odd ratios (ORs) of non-improvement/improvement in 6MWT (>30-m) and CRQ (>10-point) at discharge were different between the two groups.
Covid-19 patients had similar performances at discharge in 6MWT (P-value=0.14), CRQ (P-value=0.55), and 4.2-point higher (P-value=0.004) in FIM compared to the control group. No differences in the outcomes were found between severe and critical COVID-19 patients. The OR of non-improvement/improvement in 6MWT was 0.30 (P-value=0.13) between COVID-19 and control groups; but the odd of non-improvement in CRQ tended to be 3.02 times higher (P-value =0.075) in COVID-19 group.
In-house rehabilitation is effective and suitable for COVID-19 patients irrespective from disease severity. The discrepancy of high physical improvement and relatively low gains of disease related quality of life compared to control patients with common pneumonia is however remarkable. Further studies need to evaluate whether this discrepancy is an indicator of chronic disease development.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
There is no funding for this study
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All Patients gave written general consent for using their data for research purpose. The patients data were anonymised before analysis. This study was approved by the scientific committee of Academy Barmelweid.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* share the first authorship
Data Availability
The database generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
