The efficacy of pulmonary rehabilitation training program for patients after lung transplantation

Abstract

Background Pulmonary rehabilitation is recognized widely as one of the most effective measures to promote postoperative recovery of lung transplant recipients (LTRs), and it has positive effects on both short- and long-term quality of life (QoL) and survival outcomes. However, no standardized pulmonary rehabilitation training programs exist specifically for LTRs. The pulmonary rehabilitation programs widely used in clinical practice focus mainly on exercise or respiratory training, to some extent neglecting other therapeutic methods that could promote patient health, such as nutrition support, pain control, spiritual comfort, and so on. This study aimed to develop a postoperative pulmonary rehabilitation training program for LTRs and evaluate its effectiveness. Methods Using convenience sampling, all patients who underwent lung transplantation (LTx) at Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital from January 2021 to December 2022 were screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a total of 68 patients were finally included in this study. A non-synchronous quasi-experimental design was used, with patients who underwent LTx in 2021 as the control group and patients who underwent LTx in 2022 as the experimental group. The control group received routine treatment, health education, and rehabilitation guidance when patients determined the date of surgery. In addition to this, the experimental group received pulmonary rehabilitation training. The incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (pulmonary infections), duration of chest tube drainage, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, postoperative pain scores, postoperative QoL, pulmonary function, oxygenation index, and the distance in the 6-minute walking test (6MWD) were compared between the two groups. Results The length of ICU stay and duration of chest tube drainage in the experimental group were lower than those in the control group, and the results of oxygenation index, 6MWD, and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (reflecting the QoL) were better than those of the control group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the pain of the two groups 1 week after surgery and 3 months after surgery, and the pain score of the experimental group was lower than that of the control group at 1 month after surgery (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusions The postoperative pulmonary rehabilitation training program for LTRs is safe and effective. It can shorten both the duration of chest tube drainage and ICU stay, it can also improve patients’ exercise capacity and pulmonary function while also promote safety outcomes of LTRs, and improve QoL scores.