Objectives: 1.- To compare the level of oxygenation achieved during muscular training with conventional oxygen systems (nasal cannulas) versus nasal High-flow oxygen therapy. 2.-To compare benefits achieved with both systems, in terms of: level of exercise during training; effort tolerance in the 6 minutes walking test (6MWT); improvement of dyspnoea and Health-related quality of life (HRQoL). And analyse the effects of nasal High-flow oxygen therapy on the acute exercise in a subgroup of patients. Method: Multicentric randomized clinical trial. Patients with ILD in fibrotic phase who present oxygen desaturation during 6MWT (SpO2 mean ≤ 85%) will be included consecutively. Will be randomized in two groups: ILD patients with conventional oxygen (EPIDOC) and ILD patients with nasal High-Flow oxygen therapy (EPIDOAF). Both groups will perform a Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program. Oxygen will be titrated respectively to flow and FiO2 needed to maintain SpO2 ≥ 90% during training with both systems. Evaluation measures: SpO2 during training in both groups; dyspnoea (mMRC scale and CRQ dyspnoea); exercise capacity (6MWT) and HRQoL (self- administered KBILD questionnaire and SF36). In a subgroup of patients will be compared time of endurance exercise to evaluate the effects of nasal high-flow oxygen therapy in the acute exercise.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
60
conventional nasal prongs vs nasal high flow oxygen during Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Interstitial Lung Disease.
Level of Sat O2 achived (in %) by conventional O2 vs nasal high flow oxygen during Pulmonary Rehabilitation
To compare the level of oxygenation (in SatO2 %) achieved by conventional oxygen therapy and nasal high flow oxygen therapy during muscular training program in patients with ILD measured by pulseoxymetry.
Time frame: 8 weeks
Dyspnoea (benefits in borg scale) DURING effort.
To compare the benefits in dyspnoea achieved by both systems in terms of Effort level during the training period measured by Borg Scale.
Time frame: 8 weeks
Effort capacity (Benefits in terms of meters walked in the 6mwt).
To compare the benefits achieved by both systems in terms of Effort tolerance after PR program, evaluated with the 6 minut waking test (6WT), in meters.
Time frame: 8 weeks
Basal dyspnoea (mesured by mMRC scale).
To compare the benefits achieved by both systems in terms of Improvement in basal dyspnea measured by mMRC scale.
Time frame: 8 weeks
Basal dyspnoea (mesured by the dyspnoea area of CRQ questionnaire).
To compare the benefits achieved by both systems in terms of Improvement in basal dyspnea measured by the dyspnoea area of CRQ questionnaire.
Time frame: 8 weeks
Quality of life (SF36 questionnaire).
To compare the benefits achieved by both systems in terms of Improvement in HRQoL (with SF36 questionnarire).
Time frame: 8 weeks
Quality of life (KBILD questionnaire).
To compare the benefits achieved by both systems in terms of Improvement in HRQoL (with KBILD questionnaire).
Time frame: 8 weeks
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.