Search

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has been shown to be effective on exercise capacity and dyspnea in lung transplantation (LTx) candidates. In this study, we aimed to investigate the efficacy of PR and to compare the outcomes in LTx candidates with obstructive and restrictive lung diseases. METHODS: Between January 2013 and May 2018, medical data of 86 patients who were on the waiting list for LTx were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups based on the diagnosis as obstructive patients (Group 1) and restrictive patients (Group 2). Six-minute walking test (6MWT), the Borg scale, and the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scores were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients completed the 8-week PR protocol (n = 42 in Group 1 and n = 23 in Group 2). Irrespective of the initial diagnosis, there was a significant (P < 0.05) improvement in the 6MWT distance in both groups without any statistically significant difference between the groups (Group 1, 299 m [42–548] vs. 377 m [84–561], mean increase 78 m, P < 0.001; Group 2, 337 m [70–525] vs. 396 m [139–621], mean increase 59 m, P = 0.002; Δ, P = 0.476). The effect of PR on dyspnea was significantly improved in both groups, whereas there were no differences between groups. CONCLUSION: PR has a positive effect on exercise capacity and dyspnea in patients with both obstructive and restrictive lung diseases who are on the waiting list for LTx. Our study results suggest that PR is effective in LTx candidates, irrespective of the initial diagnosis.

CONTEXT: Although pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has become a preoperative standard practice, the fact that studies do not include groups of patients who do not receive preoperative PR restricts to introduce the real benefit of the rehabilitation process in lung transplantation (LTx). AIMS: We aimed to investigate the effect of preoperative PR before LTx on postoperative period. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Retrospective, parallel design. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Between March 2012 and October 2014, medical records of patients who underwent LTx were analyzed. There were two parallel groups. (1) Study group (n = 15) included the patients with received preoperative PR for at least 8 weeks. (2) Control group (n = 12) included the patients with underwent LTx without preoperative PR as appropriate donor was found. Time to intubation, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and postoperative early mortality were evaluated. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Shapiro–Wilk, Fisher' exact test, Mann–Whitney U-test, Wilcoxon rank test. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients with LTx surgery, whose mean age was 40.6 (11.4) and 40% of females were included in the study. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics between two groups, except the age (P = 0.005). The study group intubation time (2 [0–7] days) was shorter than control group (3 [1–12] days) (P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the length of ICU stay postoperatively (P = 0.19) and postoperative early mortality rate (P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Our study results suggest that preoperative PR may shorten time to intubation in patients undergoing LTx. Therefore, referral of LTx to PR centers and preoperative PR is of utmost importance for postoperative LTx.