27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      International Journal of COPD (submit here)

      This international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal by Dove Medical Press focuses on pathophysiological processes underlying Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) interventions, patient focused education, and self-management protocols. Sign up for email alerts here.

      39,063 Monthly downloads/views I 2.893 Impact Factor I 5.2 CiteScore I 1.16 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) I 0.804 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Standardisation of Clinical Assessment, Management and Follow-Up of Acute Hospitalised Exacerbation of COPD: A Europe-Wide Consensus

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Despite hospitalization for exacerbation being a high-risk event for morbidity and mortality, there is little consensus globally regarding the assessment and management of hospitalised exacerbations of COPD. We aimed to establish a consensus list of symptoms, physiological measures, clinical scores, patient questionnaires and investigations to be obtained at time of hospitalised COPD exacerbation and follow-up.

          Methods

          A modified Delphi online survey with pre-defined consensus of importance, feasibility and frequency of measures at hospitalisation and follow-up of a COPD exacerbation was undertaken.

          Findings

          A total of 25 COPD experts from 18 countries contributed to all 3 rounds of the survey. Experts agreed that a detailed history and examination were needed. Experts also agreed on which treatments are needed and how soon these should be delivered. Experts recommended that a full blood count, renal function, C-reactive protein and cardiac blood biomarkers (BNP and troponin) should be measured within 4 hours of admission and that the modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale (mMRC) and COPD assessment test (CAT) should be performed at time of exacerbation and follow-up. Experts encouraged COPD clinicians to strongly consider discussing palliative care, if indicated, at time of hospitalisation.

          Interpretation

          This Europe-wide consensus document is the first attempt to standardise the assessment and care of patients hospitalised for COPD exacerbations. This should be regarded as the starting point to build knowledge and evidence on patients hospitalised for COPD exacerbations.

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Development and first validation of the COPD Assessment Test.

            There is need for a validated short, simple instrument to quantify chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) impact in routine practice to aid health status assessment and communication between patient and physician. Current health-related quality of life questionnaires provide valid assessment of COPD, but are complex, which limits routine use. The aim of the present study was to develop a short validated patient-completed questionnaire, the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), assessing the impact of COPD on health status. 21 candidate items identified through qualitative research with COPD patients were used in three prospective international studies (Europe and the USA, n = 1,503). Psychometric and Rasch analyses identified eight items fitting a unidimensional model to form the CAT. Items were tested for differential functioning between countries. Internal consistency was excellent: Cronbach's alpha = 0.88. Test re-test in stable patients (n = 53) was very good (intra-class correlation coefficient 0.8). In the sample from the USA, the correlation with the COPD-specific version of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire was r = 0.80. The difference between stable (n = 229) and exacerbation patients (n = 67) was five units of the 40-point scale (12%; p<0.0001). The CAT is a short, simple questionnaire for assessing and monitoring COPD. It has good measurement properties, is sensitive to differences in state and should provide a valid, reliable and standardised measure of COPD health status with worldwide relevance.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Usefulness of the Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea scale as a measure of disability in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

              Methods of classifying chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) depend largely upon spirometric measurements but disability is only weakly related to measurements of lung function. With the increased use of pulmonary rehabilitation, a need has been identified for a simple and standardised method of categorising disability in COPD. This study examined the validity of the Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea scale for this purpose. One hundred patients with COPD were recruited from an outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programme. Assessments included the MRC dyspnoea scale, spirometric tests, blood gas tensions, a shuttle walking test, and Borg scores for perceived breathlessness before and after exercise. Health status was assessed using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ). The Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (EADL) score and Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) score were also measured. Of the patients studied, 32 were classified as having MRC grade 3 dyspnoea, 34 MRC grade 4 dyspnoea, and 34 MRC grade 5 dyspnoea. Patients with MRC grades 1 and 2 dyspnoea were not included in the study. There was a significant association between MRC grade and shuttle distance, SGRQ and CRQ scores, mood state and EADL. Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was not associated with MRC grade. Multiple logistic regression showed that the determinants of disability appeared to vary with the level of disability. Between MRC grades 3 and 4 the significant covariates were exercise performance, SGRQ and depression score, whilst between grades 4 and 5 exercise performance and age were the major determinants. The MRC dyspnoea scale is a simple and valid method of categorising patients with COPD in terms of their disability that could be used to complement FEV1 in the classification of COPD severity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                copd
                copd
                International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
                Dove
                1176-9106
                1178-2005
                16 February 2021
                2021
                : 16
                : 321-332
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Respiratory Medicine Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine - Experimental Medicine, University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [2 ] National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [3 ]School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University , Perth, Australia
                [4 ]Department of Respiratory Diseases, UZ Leuven, Research Group BREATHE, KU Leuven , Leuven, Belgium
                [5 ]Faculty of Medicine, University of Paris and INSERM 1016 Institut Cochin, Cochin Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris , Paris, France
                [6 ]Department of Morphology, Surgery and Experimental Medicine, University of Ferrara , Ferrara, Italy
                [7 ]Department of Respiratory Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center , Maastricht, Netherlands
                [8 ]Department of Respiratory Sciences, NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (Respiratory), Glenfield Hospital , Leicester, UK
                [9 ]Department of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University Medical Centre Giessen and Marburg, Philipps University, Member of the German Centre for Lung Research (DZL) , Marburg, Germany
                [10 ]Pulmonary and Critical Care Division, Clinica Sagrada Familia, IDIBAPS August Pi i Sunyer Biomedical Research Institute , Barcelona, Spain
                [11 ]Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University , Hamilton, Canada
                [12 ]National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College , London, UK
                [13 ]COPD Center, Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition at Institute of Medicine, SU Sahlgrenska , Göteborg, Sweden
                [14 ]Pulmonary Research Institute at LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Airway Research Center North (ARCN), German Center for Lung Research (DZL) , Grosshansdorf, Germany
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Mona Bafadhel Respiratory Medicine Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine Experimental Medicine, University of Oxford , Oxford, UKTel +44 1865 612898 Email mona.bafadhel@ndm.ox.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3003-7918
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1830-2982
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0903-9828
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2731-5809
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1633-6356
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6191-4143
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1012-4897
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0149-4869
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9993-2478
                Article
                287705
                10.2147/COPD.S287705
                7896731
                33623379
                9a5c2e05-b755-4d4f-a9f3-25c2d9a3ce69
                © 2021 Ramakrishnan et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                History
                : 20 October 2020
                : 11 December 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 10, References: 36, Pages: 12
                Categories
                Original Research

                Respiratory medicine
                copd,disease exacerbation,hospitalisation,patient care,consensus development,expert opinion

                Comments

                Comment on this article