PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Whether Internet of Things (IoT)-based home respiratory muscle training (RMT) benefits patients with comorbid chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains unclear. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of IoT-based home RMT for patients with COPD.
UNASSIGNED: Seventy-eight patients with stable COPD were randomly divided into two groups. The control group received routine health education, while the intervention group received IoT-based home RMT (30 inspiratory muscle training [IMT] and 30 expiratory muscle training [EMT] in different respiratory cycles twice daily for 12 consecutive weeks). Assessments took place pre-intervention and 12 weeks post-intervention, including lung function tests, respiratory muscle strength tests, the mMRC dyspnea scale, CAT questionnaires, the HAMA scale, and 6-month COPD-related readmission after intervention.
UNASSIGNED: Seventy-four patients with COPD were analyzed (intervention group = 38, control group = 36), and the mean age and FEV1 of the patients were 68.65 ± 7.40 years, 1.21 ± 0.54 L. Compared to those of the control population, the intervention group exhibited higher FEV1/FVC (48.23 ± 10.97 vs 54.32 ± 10.31, p = 0.016), MIP (41.72 ± 7.70 vs 47.82 ± 10.99, p = 0.008), and MEP (42.94 ± 7.85 vs 50.29 ± 15.74, p = 0.013); lower mMRC (2.00 [2.00-3.00] vs 1.50 [1.00-2.00], p < 0.001), CAT (17.00 [12.00-21.75] vs 11.00 [9.00-13.25], p < 0.001), and HAMA (7.00 [5.00-9.00] vs 2.00 [1.00-3.00], p < 0.001) scores; and a lower incidence rate of 6-month readmission (22% vs 5%, p = 0.033).
UNASSIGNED: Compared with no intervention, IoT-based home RMT may be a more beneficial intervention for patients with COPD.
UNASSIGNED: Seventy-eight patients with stable COPD were randomly divided into two groups. The control group received routine health education, while the intervention group received IoT-based home RMT (30 inspiratory muscle training [IMT] and 30 expiratory muscle training [EMT] in different respiratory cycles twice daily for 12 consecutive weeks). Assessments took place pre-intervention and 12 weeks post-intervention, including lung function tests, respiratory muscle strength tests, the mMRC dyspnea scale, CAT questionnaires, the HAMA scale, and 6-month COPD-related readmission after intervention.
UNASSIGNED: Seventy-four patients with COPD were analyzed (intervention group = 38, control group = 36), and the mean age and FEV1 of the patients were 68.65 ± 7.40 years, 1.21 ± 0.54 L. Compared to those of the control population, the intervention group exhibited higher FEV1/FVC (48.23 ± 10.97 vs 54.32 ± 10.31, p = 0.016), MIP (41.72 ± 7.70 vs 47.82 ± 10.99, p = 0.008), and MEP (42.94 ± 7.85 vs 50.29 ± 15.74, p = 0.013); lower mMRC (2.00 [2.00-3.00] vs 1.50 [1.00-2.00], p < 0.001), CAT (17.00 [12.00-21.75] vs 11.00 [9.00-13.25], p < 0.001), and HAMA (7.00 [5.00-9.00] vs 2.00 [1.00-3.00], p < 0.001) scores; and a lower incidence rate of 6-month readmission (22% vs 5%, p = 0.033).
UNASSIGNED: Compared with no intervention, IoT-based home RMT may be a more beneficial intervention for patients with COPD.
摘要：
■基于物联网（IoT）的家庭呼吸肌训练（RMT）是否有利于慢性阻塞性肺疾病（COPD）合并症患者尚不清楚。因此,本研究旨在评估基于物联网的家庭RMT对COPD患者的有效性.
■78例稳定期COPD患者随机分为两组。对照组给予常规健康教育,而干预组接受了基于物联网的家庭RMT（30次不同呼吸周期的吸气肌训练[IMT]和30次呼气肌训练[EMT]，每天两次，连续12周）。评估发生在干预前和干预后12周，包括肺功能检查,呼吸肌力量测试,MRC呼吸困难量表，CAT问卷，HAMA量表,干预后6个月COPD相关再入院。
■分析了74例COPD患者（干预组=38，对照组=36），患者的平均年龄和FEV1为68.65±7.40岁，1.21±0.54L。与对照人群相比，干预组FEV1/FVC较高(48.23±10.97vs54.32±10.31,p=0.016),MIP（41.72±7.70vs47.82±10.99，p=0.008），和MEP（42.94±7.85vs50.29±15.74，p=0.013）；较低的mMRC（2.00[2.00-3.00]vs1.50[1.00-2.00]，p<0.001)，CAT（17.00[12.00-21.75]vs11.00[9.00-13.25]，p<0.001)，和HAMA（7.00[5.00-9.00]vs2.00[1.00-3.00]，p<0.001)评分；6个月再入院的发生率较低(22%对5%，p=0.033)。
■与没有干预相比，基于物联网的家庭RMT可能是COPD患者更有益的干预措施。
■78例稳定期COPD患者随机分为两组。对照组给予常规健康教育,而干预组接受了基于物联网的家庭RMT（30次不同呼吸周期的吸气肌训练[IMT]和30次呼气肌训练[EMT]，每天两次，连续12周）。评估发生在干预前和干预后12周，包括肺功能检查,呼吸肌力量测试,MRC呼吸困难量表，CAT问卷，HAMA量表,干预后6个月COPD相关再入院。
■分析了74例COPD患者（干预组=38，对照组=36），患者的平均年龄和FEV1为68.65±7.40岁，1.21±0.54L。与对照人群相比，干预组FEV1/FVC较高(48.23±10.97vs54.32±10.31,p=0.016),MIP（41.72±7.70vs47.82±10.99，p=0.008），和MEP（42.94±7.85vs50.29±15.74，p=0.013）；较低的mMRC（2.00[2.00-3.00]vs1.50[1.00-2.00]，p<0.001)，CAT（17.00[12.00-21.75]vs11.00[9.00-13.25]，p<0.001)，和HAMA（7.00[5.00-9.00]vs2.00[1.00-3.00]，p<0.001)评分；6个月再入院的发生率较低(22%对5%，p=0.033)。
■与没有干预相比，基于物联网的家庭RMT可能是COPD患者更有益的干预措施。
