Background: Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) with endobronchial valves can improve outcomes in appropriately selected patients with emphysema. However, no direct comparison data exist to inform clinical decision making in people who appear suitable for both procedures. Our aim was to investigate whether LVRS produces superior health outcomes when compared with BLVR at 12 months.Methods: This multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group trial randomised patients from five UK hospitals, who were suitable for a targeted lung volume reduction procedure, to either LVRS or BLVR and compared outcomes at 1 year using the i-BODE score. This composite disease severity measure includes body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnoea and exercise capacity (incremental shuttle walk test). The researchers responsible for collecting outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. All outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population.Results: 88 participants (48% female, mean±sdage 64.6±7.7 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s percent predicted 31.0±7.9%) were recruited at five specialist centres across the UK and randomised to either LVRS (n=41) or BLVR (n=47). At 12 months follow-up, the complete i-BODE was available in 49 participants (21 LVRS/28 BLVR). Neither improvement in the i-BODE score (LVRS −1.10±1.44versusBLVR −0.82±1.61; p=0.54) nor in its individual components differed between groups. Both treatments produced similar improvements in gas trapping (residual volume percent predicted: LVRS −36.1% (95% CI −54.6– −10%)versusBLVR −30.1% (95% CI −53.7– −9%); p=0.81). There was one death in each treatment arm.Conclusion: Our findings do not support the hypothesis that LVRS is a substantially superior treatment to BLVR in individuals who are suitable for both treatments.

Singing is an increasingly popular activity for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Research to date suggests that ‘Singing for Lung Health’ may improve various health measures, including health-related quality-of-life. Singing and breathing are closely linked processes affecting one another. In this narrative review, we explore the physiological rationale for ‘Singing for Lung Health’ as an intervention, focusing on the abnormalities of pulmonary mechanics seen in COPD and how these might be impacted by singing. The potential beneficial physiological mechanisms outlined here require further in-depth evaluation.

Introduction SARS-CoV-2 has restricted access to face-to-face delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). Evidence suggests that telehealth-PR is non-inferior to outpatient PR. However, it is unknown whether patients who have been referred to face-to-face programmes can feasibly complete an online-PR programme. Methods This service evaluation used a mixed-methods approach to investigate a rapid PR service remodelling using the University of Gloucestershire eLearn Moodle platform. Quantitative baseline demographic and PR outcome data were collected from online-PR participants, and semistructured interviews were completed with PR staff and participants. Results Twenty-five individuals were eligible from a PR waiting list. Thirteen declined participation and 14 completed PR. Significant pre-post online PR improvements were achieved in 1 min sit-to-stand (CI 2.1 to 9 (p=0.004)), Generalised Anxiety Disorder (CI −0.3 to −2.6 (p=0.023)), Primary Health Questionnaire-9 (CI −0.3 to −5.1 (p=0.029)), Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire dyspnoea (CI 0.5 to 1.3 (p=0.001)), fatigue (CI 0.7 to 2 (p=0.0004)), emotion (CI 0.7 to 1.7 (p=0.0002)), mastery (CI 0.4 to 1.3 (p=0.001)). Interviews indicated that patient PR inclusion was made possible with digital support and a PR introduction session improved participant engagement and safety. Incremental progression of exercise was perceived as more successful online compared with face-to-face PR. However, perceptions were that education sessions were less successful. Online-PR required significant staff time resource. Discussion Online-PR improves patient outcomes and is feasible and acceptable for individuals referred for face-to-face PR in the context of a requirement for social distancing. Face-to-face programmes can be adapted in a rapid fashion with both staff and participants perceiving benefit. Future pragmatic trials are now warranted comparing online-PR including remote assessments to centre-based PR with suitably matched outcomes, and patient and staff perceptions sought regarding barriers and facilitators of online delivery.

Introduction Participating in singing is considered to have a range of social and psychological benefits. However, the physiological demands of singing and its intensity as a physical activity are not well understood. Methods We compared cardiorespiratory parameters while completing components of Singing for Lung Health sessions, with treadmill walking at differing speeds (2, 4 and 6 km/hour). Results Eight healthy adults were included, none of whom reported regular participation in formal singing activities. Singing induced acute physiological responses that were consistent with moderate intensity activity (metabolic equivalents: median 4.12, IQR 2.72–4.78), with oxygen consumption, heart rate and volume per breath above those seen walking at 4 km/hour. Minute ventilation was higher during singing (median 22.42 L/min, IQR 16.83–30.54) than at rest (11 L/min, 9–13), lower than 6 km/hour walking (30.35 L/min, 26.94–41.11), but not statistically different from 2 km/hour (18.77 L/min, 16.89–21.35) or 4 km/hour (23.27 L/min, 20.09–26.37) walking. Conclusions Our findings suggest the acute metabolic demands of singing are comparable with walking at a moderately brisk pace, hence, physical effects may contribute to the health and well-being benefits attributed to singing participation. However, if physical training benefits result remains uncertain. Further research including different singing styles, singers and physical performance impacts when used as a training modality is encouraged. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT04121351).

Rationale: Dietary nitrate supplementation improves skeletal muscle oxygen utilisation and vascular endothelial function. We hypothesised that these effects might be sufficient to improve exercise performance in patients with COPD and hypoxia severe enough to require supplemental oxygen.Methods: We conducted a single-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study, enrolling adults with COPD who were established users of long-term oxygen therapy. Participants performed an endurance shuttle walk test, using their prescribed oxygen, 3 hours after consuming either 140 mL of nitrate-rich beetroot juice (BRJ) (12.9 mmol nitrate) or placebo (nitrate-depleted BRJ). Treatment order was allocated (1:1) by computer-generated block randomisation.Measurements: The primary outcome was endurance shuttle walk test time. The secondary outcomes included area under the curve to isotime for fingertip oxygen saturation and heart rate parameters during the test, blood pressure, and endothelial function assessed using flow-mediated dilatation. Plasma nitrate and nitrite levels as well as FE_NOwere also measured.Main results: 20 participants were recruited and all completed the study. Nitrate-rich BRJ supplementation prolonged exercise endurance time in all participants as compared with placebo: median (IQR) 194.6 (147.5–411.7) s vs 159.1 (121.9–298.5) s, estimated treatment effect 62 (33–106) s (p<0.0001). Supplementation also improved endothelial function: NR-BRJ group +4.1% (−1.1% to 14.8%) vs placebo BRJ group −5.0% (−10.6% to –0.6%) (p=0.0003).Conclusion: Acute dietary nitrate supplementation increases exercise endurance in patients with COPD who require supplemental oxygen.Trial registration numberISRCTN14888729.

Objectives To explore physiotherapists’ opinions of physiotherapy assessment of Breathing Pattern Disorder (BPD). Methods Qualitative study using focus groups (FGs) with reflexive thematic analysis and survey methods. The survey was distributed via social media and email to UK specialist physiotherapy interest groups. Two FGs, conducted in different settings, included physiotherapists based in hospital outpatients/community, private practice and higher education. Results One-hundred-and-three physiotherapists completed the survey. Respondents identified a lack of consensus in how to define BPD, but some agreement in the components to include in assessment. Fifteen physiotherapists participated in the FGs. Three themes emerged from FG discussions: (1) nomenclature and language of breathing, (2) BPD and breathlessness and (3) The value of assessment of breathlessness. Conclusion The inconsistent nomenclature of dysfunctional breathing pattern impacts assessment, management and understanding of the diagnosis. Clarity in diagnosis, informing consistency in assessment, is fundamental to improving recognition and treatment of BPD. The findings are useful in the planning of education, training, future research and guideline development in BPD assessment.