Pulmonary Rehabilitation Outcomes of Post-Acute COVID-19 Patients during Different Waves of the Pandemic

Marc Spielmanns (), Corina E. Schaer, Anna-Maria Pekacka-Egli, Sabine Spielmanns, Olberk Ibish, Guzel Gafina, Antonela Stiube and Matthias Hermann
Additional contact information
Marc Spielmanns: Pulmonary Medicine, Zuercher RehaZentren, Klinik Wald, 8636 Wald, Switzerland
Corina E. Schaer: Pulmonary Medicine, Zuercher RehaZentren, Klinik Wald, 8636 Wald, Switzerland
Anna-Maria Pekacka-Egli: Pulmonary Medicine, Zuercher RehaZentren, Klinik Wald, 8636 Wald, Switzerland
Sabine Spielmanns: Pulmonary Medicine, Zuercher RehaZentren, Klinik Wald, 8636 Wald, Switzerland
Olberk Ibish: Pulmonary Medicine, Zuercher RehaZentren, Klinik Wald, 8636 Wald, Switzerland
Guzel Gafina: Pulmonary Medicine, Zuercher RehaZentren, Klinik Wald, 8636 Wald, Switzerland
Antonela Stiube: Pulmonary Medicine, Zuercher RehaZentren, Klinik Wald, 8636 Wald, Switzerland
Matthias Hermann: Department of Cardiology, University Heart Center, University Hospital Zurich, 8006 Zurich, Switzerland

IJERPH, 2023, vol. 20, issue 10, 1-11

Abstract: (1) Background: Between the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic and summer 2022, we distinguished four pandemic waves, with different characteristics of the affected patients. This study investigated the impact of patient characteristics on the outcome of inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). (2) Methods: Using a prospective approach, the characteristics of post-acute COVID-19 patients of the different waves who participated in inpatient PR were compared based on their assessments and results collected as part of PR (Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), six-minute walk test (6-MWT), Pulmonary Function Testing (PFT), and Functional Independent Measurement (FIM). (3) Results: A total of 483 patients were included in the analysis (Wave 1 n = 51, Wave 2 n = 202, Wave 3 n = 84, Wave 4 n = 146). Compared to Wave 3 + 4, patients of Wave 1 + 2 were older (69 vs. 63 years; p < 0.001), had a significantly lower CIRS (13.0 vs. 14.7 points; p = 0.004), had significant better PFT (FVC: 73 vs. 68%pred; p = 0.009; DLCO SB : 58 ± 18 vs. 50 ± 17%pred; p = 0.001), and showed significantly more comorbidities (2.0 vs. 1.6 n/pers.; p = 0.009). Wave 3 + 4 showed significantly greater improvements according to the 6-MWT (147 vs. 188 m; p < 0.001) and the FIM (5.6 vs. 21.1 points; p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: Patients of the COVID-19 infection waves differed significantly according to their anthropometric data, incidence of comorbidities, and impact of the infection. All cohorts achieved clinically relevant and significant functional improvements during PR, with significant higher improvements in Wave 3 + 4.

Keywords: COVID-19 waves; 6-MWT; FIM; CIRS; pandemic; pulmonary rehabilitation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/10/5907/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/10/5907/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:10:p:5907-:d:1152475

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().