Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: Not all patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience similar benefits after pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). This pre-post PR study used a large sample of patients with COPD to determine whether PR-induced changes of oxygen uptake (V˙O2) kinetics and exercise responses of V˙O2, carbon dioxide output (V˙CO2), minute ventilation (V˙E), V˙E/V˙CO2, breathing frequency, and tidal volume differed between responders and nonresponders to PR.
Methods: Responders to PR were defined as patients with a minimal clinically important increase in endurance time of 105 s. Isotime (=180 s) values of V˙O2, V˙CO2, V˙E, V˙E/V˙CO2, breathing frequency, and tidal volume; gains of V˙O2, V˙CO2, and V˙E; and V˙O2 mean response time of 183 patients with COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 s: 56% ± 19% predicted) were compared between pre- and post-PR constant work rate tests.
Results: After PR, only the group of responders significantly decreased V˙O2 mean response time (P < 0.05), V˙CO2 gain, V˙E gain, and isotime values of V˙CO2, V˙E, and V˙E/V˙CO2 (all, P < 0.001), while also improving their breathing pattern (e.g., decreased breathing frequency isotime value; P < 0.0001). These changes were not observed in the group of nonresponders. Changes in physiological exercise responses were correlated with changes in physical performance (e.g., correlation between changes in V˙O2 mean response time and endurance time: P = 0.0002, r = -0.32).
Conclusions: PR-induced changes in physiological exercise responses differed between responders and nonresponders. Physiological changes are relevant to explain the variable improvements of physical performance after PR in patients with COPD.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000002578 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!