Surgical resection remains the best treatment option for patients with early stage of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it may be responsible of postoperative complication and mortality, especially in patients with impaired pulmonary function. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have been focused mainly in minimal invasive surgery approach during lung resection and respiratory rehabilitation after surgery. Preoperative exercise-based intervention (prehabilitation) has demonstrated reduction of morbi-mortality in other surgeries but in thoracic surgery continues to be under discussion. Cardio-pulmonary exercise test (CPET) is the gold standard technique to predict postoperative morbimortality. The implementation of a preoperative respiratory rehabilitation could optimize patient's physical capacity before surgery and improve outcomes and enhance recovery. The aim of this systematic review of the literature is to identify the effectiveness and safety of prehabilitation programs in thoracic surgery, the type of exercise and its duration, and the group of patients with best benefit. Prehabilitation is a safe intervention without side effects in patients. High-intensity interval training (HIT) with duration of 2 to 6 weeks seems to be the best exercise programme in a prehabilitation intervention but it exists heterogeneity in terms of intensity and duration. Prehabilitation increase exercise capacity and significantly enhances pulmonary function. But the reduction of postoperative complication and mortality has not been clearly demonstrated. Different criteria selection, type of intervention and small sample size, in addition to no randomization, could justify disparate results. It seems that not all patients can benefit from prehabilitation and it could be indicated only in patients with impaired lung function. Further randomized clinical trials with enough patients, correct duration of HIT (2 to 6 weeks) and focused in COPD patients are needed to clarify the suitability of prehabilitation. Meanwhile, safety of prehabilitation and good results of some studies support this intervention in high-risk patients.

Background: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and identify the predictors of outcome of intercostal arterial embolization for hemothorax caused by intercostal artery (ICA) injuries. Methods: A retrospective multi-institutional study was conducted. Outcomes were analyzed in 30 consecutive patients presenting with hemothorax caused by active ICA hemorrhage undergoing transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE). Clinical and procedural parameters were compared between outcomes groups. Results: Overall technical success rate was 87% (n=26). Among the 4 failed cases, 2 underwent repeated TAE and 2 underwent additional surgery. Overall 30-day mortality rate was 23%. Low haemoglobin levels and haematocrit, hepatic comorbidities and more than one artery undergoing embolization increased technical failure rate significantly. Survival was poorer in patients with massive bleeding.Conclusions: ICA embolization was found to be a safe and effective method in treating hemothorax caused by active ICA haemorrhage. Careful pre-embolization evaluation may be required for patient with low haemoglobin levels and haematocrit, hepatic comorbidities and active haemorrhage from more than one artery.

Background: Multimodal prehabilitation is a preoperative intervention with the objective to enhance cancer patients' functional status which has been showed to reduce both postoperative morbidity and hospital length of stay in digestive oncologic surgery. However, in lung cancer surgery patients further studies with higher methodological quality are needed to clarify the benefits of prehabilitation. The main aim of the current protocol is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a multimodal prehabilitation program supported by information and communication technologies in moderate-to-high risk lung cancer patients undergoing thoracic surgery. Methods: A Quadruple Aim approach will be adopted, assessing the prehabilitation program at the following levels: i) Patients' and professionals' experience outcomes (by means of standardized questionnaires, focus groups and structured interviews); ii) Population health-based outcomes (e.g. hospital length of stay, number and severity of postoperative complications, peak oxygen uptake and levels of systemic inflammation); and, iii) Healthcare costs. Discussion: This study protocol should contribute not only to increase the scientific basis on prehabilitation but also to detect the main factors modulating service adoption.

Lung cancer screening programs with computed tomography of the chest reduce mortality by more than 20%. Yet, they have not been implemented widely because of logistic and cost implications. Here, we sought to: (1) use real-life data to compare the outcomes and cost of lung cancer patients with treated medically or surgically in our region and (2) from this data, estimate the cost–benefit ratio of a lung cancer screening program (CRIBAR) soon to be deployed in our region (Catalunya, Spain). We accessed the Catalan Health Surveillance System (CHSS) and analysed data of all patients with a first diagnosis of lung cancer between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2016. Analysis was carried forward until 30 months (t = 30) after lung cancer diagnosis. Main results showed that: (1) surgically treated lung cancer patients have better survival and return earlier to regular home activities, use less healthcare related resources and cost less tax-payer money and (2) depending on incidence of lung cancer identified and treated in the program (1–2%), the return on investment for CRIBAR is expected to break even at 3–6 years, respectively, after its launch. Surgical treatment of lung cancer is cheaper and offers better outcomes. CRIBAR is estimated to be cost-effective soon after launch.

No abstract