PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
Aerobic training and breathing exercises are interventions that improve asthma control. However, the outcomes of these 2 interventions have not been compared.
To compare the effects of aerobic training versus breathing exercises on clinical control (primary outcome), quality of life, exercise capacity, and airway inflammation in outpatients with moderate-to-severe asthma.
Fifty-four asthmatics were randomized into either the aerobic training group (AG, n = 29) or the breathing exercise group (BG, n = 25). Both interventions lasted for 24 sessions (2/week, 40 minutes/session). Asthma clinical control (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ]), quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire), asthma symptom-free days (ASFD), airway inflammation, exercise capacity, psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), daily-life physical activity (DLPA), and pulmonary function were evaluated before, immediately after, and 3 months after the intervention.
Both interventions presented similar results regarding the ACQ score, psychological distress, ASFD, DLPA, and airway inflammation (P > .05). However, participants in the AG were 2.6 times more likely to experience clinical improvement at the 3-month follow-up than participants in the BG (P = .02). A greater proportion of participants in the AG also presented a reduction in the number of days without rescue medication use compared with BG (34% vs 8%; P = .04).
Outpatients with moderate-to-severe asthma who participated in aerobic training or breathing exercise programs presented similar results in asthma control, quality of life, asthma symptoms, psychological distress, physical activity, and airway inflammation. However, a greater proportion of participants in the AG presented improvement in asthma control and reduced use of rescue medication.
To compare the effects of aerobic training versus breathing exercises on clinical control (primary outcome), quality of life, exercise capacity, and airway inflammation in outpatients with moderate-to-severe asthma.
Fifty-four asthmatics were randomized into either the aerobic training group (AG, n = 29) or the breathing exercise group (BG, n = 25). Both interventions lasted for 24 sessions (2/week, 40 minutes/session). Asthma clinical control (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ]), quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire), asthma symptom-free days (ASFD), airway inflammation, exercise capacity, psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), daily-life physical activity (DLPA), and pulmonary function were evaluated before, immediately after, and 3 months after the intervention.
Both interventions presented similar results regarding the ACQ score, psychological distress, ASFD, DLPA, and airway inflammation (P > .05). However, participants in the AG were 2.6 times more likely to experience clinical improvement at the 3-month follow-up than participants in the BG (P = .02). A greater proportion of participants in the AG also presented a reduction in the number of days without rescue medication use compared with BG (34% vs 8%; P = .04).
Outpatients with moderate-to-severe asthma who participated in aerobic training or breathing exercise programs presented similar results in asthma control, quality of life, asthma symptoms, psychological distress, physical activity, and airway inflammation. However, a greater proportion of participants in the AG presented improvement in asthma control and reduced use of rescue medication.
摘要：
有氧训练和呼吸练习是改善哮喘控制的干预措施。然而,这两种干预措施的结局尚未进行比较.
为了比较有氧训练和呼吸训练对临床控制（主要结果）的影响，生活质量,锻炼能力,和中重度哮喘门诊患者的气道炎症。
54名哮喘患者被随机分为有氧训练组(AG，n=29）或呼吸运动组（BG，n=25)。两项干预措施都持续了24次(2次/周，40分钟/会话)。哮喘临床控制（哮喘控制问卷[ACQ]），生活质量（哮喘生活质量问卷），哮喘无症状天数（ASFD），气道炎症,锻炼能力,心理困扰（医院焦虑和抑郁量表），日常生活体力活动（DLPA），之前评估了肺功能，紧接着,干预后3个月。
两种干预措施在ACQ评分方面都表现出相似的结果，心理困扰,ASFD,DLPA,气道炎症（P>0.05）。然而,在3个月的随访中,AG参与者的临床改善的可能性是BG参与者的2.6倍(P=.02).与BG相比，AG中更大比例的参与者没有使用救援药物的天数也减少了（34％vs8％；P=.04）。
参加有氧训练或呼吸锻炼计划的中重度哮喘门诊患者在哮喘控制方面取得了相似的结果。生活质量,哮喘症状,心理困扰,身体活动,和气道炎症。然而,在AG中,有更大比例的参与者表现出哮喘控制改善和救护药物使用减少.
为了比较有氧训练和呼吸训练对临床控制（主要结果）的影响，生活质量,锻炼能力,和中重度哮喘门诊患者的气道炎症。
54名哮喘患者被随机分为有氧训练组(AG，n=29）或呼吸运动组（BG，n=25)。两项干预措施都持续了24次(2次/周，40分钟/会话)。哮喘临床控制（哮喘控制问卷[ACQ]），生活质量（哮喘生活质量问卷），哮喘无症状天数（ASFD），气道炎症,锻炼能力,心理困扰（医院焦虑和抑郁量表），日常生活体力活动（DLPA），之前评估了肺功能，紧接着,干预后3个月。
两种干预措施在ACQ评分方面都表现出相似的结果，心理困扰,ASFD,DLPA,气道炎症（P>0.05）。然而,在3个月的随访中,AG参与者的临床改善的可能性是BG参与者的2.6倍(P=.02).与BG相比，AG中更大比例的参与者没有使用救援药物的天数也减少了（34％vs8％；P=.04）。
参加有氧训练或呼吸锻炼计划的中重度哮喘门诊患者在哮喘控制方面取得了相似的结果。生活质量,哮喘症状,心理困扰,身体活动,和气道炎症。然而,在AG中,有更大比例的参与者表现出哮喘控制改善和救护药物使用减少.
