Effectiveness comparison of inpatient vs. outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation: a systematic review

Abstract

Abstract Background Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is the cornerstone of nonpharmacological treatments in chronic respiratory disease (CRD) management. PR can be performed in different settings, the most frequent of which are inpatient (inPR) and outpatient (outPR) management. In the literature, these two distinct modalities are generally considered to be the same intervention. Yet, they differ in terms of the length of stay, social support, and the time the patient is not in their normal environment, and the presumed absence of differences in terms of efficacy has never been established. Purpose To identify studies that directly compared the effects of inPR and outPR on patients with all types of CRDs through a systematic review and to synthesize the evidence regarding the effectiveness comparison of both modalities. Methods A literature search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library on 24 March 2022. The inclusion criteria were: articles with adults with chronic respiratory disease and comparing inPR versus outPR in at least one PR outcome. Results Seven hundred thirty-six articles were retrieved from the databases. Six retrospective articles met the inclusion criteria. A best-evidence synthesis (BES) was carried out. Eight outcomes could be found in the included papers. For healthcare burden and refusals, no data could be extracted, and thus no BES was performed. For the eight remaining outcomes, two results were in favor of inPR with moderate evidence (HRQoL and psychological status), three were in favor of no difference between inPR and outPR with moderate or limited evidence (muscle strength, dropouts/adherence, and survival status), and three led to conflicting results (exercise tolerance, dyspnea, and economic costs). Conclusion With the current state of knowledge, the majority of the studies converge towards an absence of differences between inPR and outPR or in favor of inPR for seven out of eight outcomes, albeit with moderate, limited, or conflicting evidence. The greater effectiveness of inPR for some outcomes will have to be confirmed in a well-designed RCT in order to orient public health policies in terms of the development of PR with the best evidence-based medicine approach. Trial registration PROSPERO: CRD42020166546.