Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an essential method for Acute exacerbation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) recovery. We perform a meta-analysis to compare early PR with usual care. A literature search was performed through these databases: PubMed, MEDLINE database, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Embase from inception to July 2021. Eligible trials were clinical randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of early PR and usual care in AECOPD patients. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was FEV1% predicted, 6-min walk test (6MWD), modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) and George Respiratory Questionnaire-total (SGRQ-total). The secondary outcomes were borg dyspnea score, short-form 36 health survey questionnaire physical (SF-36 physical) and SF-36 mental. We included 13 RCTs with a total of 866 patients. There were no significant effects of the PR group on measures of FEV1% predicted (MD = 0.50, 95%CI -1.43 to 2.44, Z = 0.51, p = 0.61), borg dyspnea score (MD = -0.88, 95%CI -1.89 to 0.13, Z = 1.71, p = 0.09) and SF-36 mental (MD = 4.34, 95%CI -1.64 to 10.32, Z = 1.42, p = 0.16) compared with usual care. PR group achieved better 6MWD (MD = 97.58, 95%CI 17.21 to 177.96, Z = 2.38, p = 0.02), mMRC (MD = -0.36, 95%CI -0.52 to -0.21, Z = 4.56, p ˂ 0.00001), SGRQ-total (MD= -9.67, 95%CI -16.23 to -3.11, Z = 2.89, p = 0.004) and SF-36 physical (MD = 4.98, 95%CI 0.60 to 9.35, Z = 2.23, p = 0.03) compared with usual care group. Early PR in AECOPD patients would lead to better 6MWD, mMRC, SGRQ-total and SF-36 physical. But there were no significant effects of the PR group on measures of FEV1% predicted, borg dyspnea score and SF-36 mental.
Keywords: Pulmonary rehabilitation; acute exacerbation; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; early rehabilitation.