Efficacy of early pulmonary rehabilitation in severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients: a retrospective cohort study

Table 2 Primary and secondary outcomes of original and weighting cohort. Results were presented as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Significance was defined as P < 0.05. PR, pulmonary rehabilitation; P/F, PaO₂/FiO₂; OR, odds ratio; MD, mean difference; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; IQR, interquartile range

Outcomes	Original cohort
Outcomes	PR group (n = 39)	Control group (n = 233)	OR/MD (95% CI) ^b	P value ^b	PR group (n = 245.7)	Control group (n = 269.4)	OR/MD (95% CI) ^b	P value ^b
Primary outcome
Composite disease progression outcome, n (%)	11 (28.2)	114 (48.9)	0.41 (0.20, 0.86)	0.016	40.5 (16.5)	131.4 (48.8)	0.21 (0.07, 0.66)	0.005
Secondary outcome
All-cause mortality during hospitalization, n (%)	7 (17.9)	82 (35.2)	0.4 (0.17, 0.95)	0.034	31.9 (13.0)	97.3 (36.1)	0.26 (0.07, 0.98)	0.038
Intensive care unit admission, n (%)	5 (12.8)	59 (25.3)	0.43 (0.16, 1.16)	0.088	23.6 (9.6)	63.1 (23.4)	0.34 (0.08, 1.55)	0.154
Change of P/F, median (IQR) ^c	142.1 (56.9, 223.7)	107.6 (51.8, 178.8)	18.94 (-28.37, 66.26)	0.322	88.1 (45.2, 260.0)	112.5 (51.7, 175.3)	21.2 (-50.39, 92.79)	0.444

a. Sample size of weighting cohort was calculated by inverse probability of treatment weighting
b Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test was used to calculate P values for categorical variables, and univariate logistic regression was used to calculate OR (95% CI) for categorical variables. The change in P/F was consistent with a skewed distribution; therefore, the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate P values. Linear regression was used to calculate the MD and 95% CI
c. Outcomes of change in P/F in the original cohort were reported in 95 patients, 29 in the PR group, and 66 in the control group
PR, pulmonary rehabilitation; P/F, PaO₂/FiO₂; OR, odds ratio; MD, mean difference; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; IQR, interquartile range

ISSN: 1471-2466