Why the study?
Rehabilitation after PE is beneficial, but facilities would be overwhelmed by acute PE patients, prompting development of a home exercise program to improve access, reduce costs, and assess safety.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Population
Patients discharged after intermediate- or high-risk PE
Comparison
Home exercise program
Electronically delivered early rehab appears safe after intermediate-risk PE; leaves open whether it prevents impairment or merits routine use pending larger trials.
Survivors of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) often have residual dyspnea (post-PE impairment) and consume substantial health care resources despite effective anti-coagulation (17% [1]-50% [2]). Cardiopulmonary exercise testing has demonstrated deconditioning as a common finding [3, 4], and anxiety may fuel sedentary behavior which prevents recovery. Rehabilitation programs >3 months after PE are beneficial [5, 6]; however, an influx of acute PE patients would soon overwhelm facilities, even if the system only focused on higher-risk patients. With the goals of improving access (by eliminating transportation), reducing costs, and enabling early recovery, we developed a home exercise program for patients discharged after intermediate- or high-risk PE [7]. Our primary goal was to assess safety, but we also measured 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), actigraphy, and quality of life. Footnotes This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the European Respiratory Journal . It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJ online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article. Conflict of interest: All authors report support for the present manuscript from Chest Foundation Grant and URMC KL2 Scholar Award. Conflict of interest: In addition, outside the submitted work, Daniel Lachant reports consulting fees and lecture honoraria from United Therapeutics, Liquidia. Conflict of interest: All other authors have nothing further to disclose.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lachant et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: