Virtual reality in pulmonary rehabilitation: A systematic review of clinical outcomes in COPD and post-COVID conditions

Mar 13, 2026Physiology international

Virtual reality in lung rehabilitation: Clinical results for COPD and post-COVID patients

AI simplified

Long Covid on OpenScience ↗PubMed ↗DOI ↗OA ↗

Abstract

Across nine randomized trials involving 552 patients, VR-based pulmonary rehabilitation improved exercise capacity in all studies.

Improvements in exercise capacity were observed consistently in both virtual reality (VR) and traditional pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) groups.
A long-duration trial indicated meaningful improvement in lung function (FEV1) with VR, while shorter trials showed limited changes.
Both VR and standard PR groups experienced improvements in dyspnea and functional scores, but without consistent differences between them.
VR was associated with greater reductions in anxiety and depression scores compared to standard PR, with one trial reporting improved cognitive function post-intervention.
Quality of life outcomes improved in both groups, suggesting that VR may be as effective as traditional methods.

AI simplified

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and post-COVID syndrome cause persistent dyspnea and exercise intolerance. Traditional pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) improves outcomes. Virtual reality (VR)-based PR has been proposed as an engaging alternative. We systematically reviewed randomized trials of VR-based PR programs to evaluate its efficacy and feasibility.

METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL and Google Scholar (2014-Feb 2025) for RCTs comparing VR-assisted PR versus standard PR in patients with COPD or post-COVID conditions. Based on the selection criteria nine trials (primary search total n = 552; 488 COPD and 64 post-COVID patients) were included. Six domains were considered: lung function, exercise capacity (6MWT, STST), dyspnea, quality of life, mental health, and cognitive function.

RESULTS: Across nine RCTs (n = 552), VR-based pulmonary rehabilitation resulted improvements in exercise capacity in all studies, with several reporting greater gains in VR groups. A long-duration trial showed meaningful FEV1 improvement with VR, while shorter trials showed limited changes. Dyspnea and functional scores improved in both groups without consistent between-group differences. VR tended to yield greater reductions in anxiety and depression scores, and one trial showed better cognitive function in post-intervention. Quality-of-life outcomes improved in both groups.

CONCLUSION: VR-based PR was feasible and produced functional gains at least equal to those of traditional PR. VR's capacity for remote supervised training and gamification holds promise to improve access and adherence. However, evidence is limited by small, short-term trials. Larger, longer RCTs are needed to confirm these benefits, optimize VR protocols, and evaluate cost-effectiveness.