BACKGROUND: The feasibility and practicality of preoperative rehabilitation (PR) programs remains quite controversial in the treatment of lung cancer (LC). This study explored whether a short-term high-intensity rehabilitation program could improve postoperative outcomes compared to those achieved with conventional inspiratory muscle training (IMT). METHODS: A three-armed randomized controlled trial comparing the two training modalities and routine care was conducted in surgical LC patients. Patient groups received one of three treatment regimens: (I) high-intensity pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) that combined IMT with conventional resistance training (CRT) (combined PR group); (II) conventional PR (single IMT group); or (III) routine preoperative preparation (control group). The primary endpoint was a change in the occurrence of post-operative pulmonary complications (PPCs) that occurred within 30 days after surgery, while secondary endpoints included changes in length of hospital stay, quality of life (QoL) scores, 6-min walk distance (6-MWD) and peak expiratory flow (PEF). RESULTS:A total of 90 enrolled patients were randomized into three groups with a computer-based 1:1:1 ratio. The intention-to-treat analysis of the study revealed that, compared with the Control Group, the Combined PR Group had a significant increase in ∆6-MWD (by 32.67 m, P=0.002), ∆PEF (by 14.3 L/min, P=0.001), ∆global scores (by 3.7, P=0.035); and a reduced ∆average total hospital stay (by 3.2 d, P=0.001) and ∆postoperative stay (by 3.6 d, P=0.001). With regard to PPC rate, the Combined PR Group had a somewhat lower PPC severity (grade II-V) compared to the Control Group. CONCLUSIONS: This hospital-based short-term program of PR combining high-intensity IMT with CRT was significantly superior to the conventional IMT program, indicating that this approach would be a feasible strategy for treating LC patients, especially those waiting operations with surgery-related risk factors.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The feasibility and practicality of preoperative rehabilitation (PR) programs remains quite controversial in the treatment of lung cancer (LC). This study explored whether a short-term high-intensity rehabilitation program could improve postoperative outcomes compared to those achieved with conventional inspiratory muscle training (IMT). METHODS: A three-armed randomized controlled trial comparing the two training modalities and routine care was conducted in surgical LC patients. Patient groups received one of three treatment regimens: (I) high-intensity pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) that combined IMT with conventional resistance training (CRT) (combined PR group); (II) conventional PR (single IMT group); or (III) routine preoperative preparation (control group). The primary endpoint was a change in the occurrence of post-operative pulmonary complications (PPCs) that occurred within 30 days after surgery, while secondary endpoints included changes in length of hospital stay, quality of life (QoL) scores, 6-min walk distance (6-MWD) and peak expiratory flow (PEF). RESULTS: A total of 90 enrolled patients were randomized into three groups with a computer-based 1:1:1 ratio. The intention-to-treat analysis of the study revealed that, compared with the Control Group, the Combined PR Group had a significant increase in ∆6-MWD (by 32.67 m, P=0.002), ∆PEF (by 14.3 L/min, P=0.001), ∆global scores (by 3.7, P=0.035); and a reduced ∆average total hospital stay (by 3.2 d, P=0.001) and ∆postoperative stay (by 3.6 d, P=0.001). With regard to PPC rate, the Combined PR Group had a somewhat lower PPC severity (grade II-V) compared to the Control Group. CONCLUSIONS: This hospital-based short-term program of PR combining high-intensity IMT with CRT was significantly superior to the conventional IMT program, indicating that this approach would be a feasible strategy for treating LC patients, especially those waiting operations with surgery-related risk factors.
Entities:
Keywords:
Short-term; high-intensity; lung cancer (LC); preoperative rehabilitation (PR)
Authors: Erik H J Hulzebos; Paul J M Helders; Nine J Favié; Rob A De Bie; Aart Brutel de la Riviere; Nico L U Van Meeteren Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-10-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jos A Stigt; Steven M Uil; Susanne J H van Riesen; Frans J N A Simons; Monique Denekamp; Ghada M Shahin; Harry J M Groen Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Johannes M Douwes; Anneke K Hegeman; Merel B van der Krieke; Marcus T R Roofthooft; Hans L Hillege; Rolf M F Berger Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Felix G Fernandez; Andrzej S Kosinski; William Burfeind; Bernard Park; Malcolm M DeCamp; Christopher Seder; Blair Marshall; Mitchell J Magee; Cameron D Wright; Benjamin D Kozower Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Daniel J Boffa; Mark S Allen; Joshua D Grab; Henning A Gaissert; David H Harpole; Cameron D Wright Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2007-12-21 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Caroline Himbert; Nicole Klossner; Adriana M Coletta; Christopher A Barnes; Joachim Wiskemann; Paul C LaStayo; Thomas K Varghese; Cornelia M Ulrich Journal: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol Date: 2020-09-13 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Chan Yeu Pu; Hanan Batarseh; Michelle L Zafron; M Jeffery Mador; Sai Yendamuri; Andrew D Ray Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: Sandra I Bril; Najiba Chargi; Thomas F Pezier; Bernard M Tijink; Weibel W Braunius; Ernst J Smid; Pim A de Jong; Remco de Bree Journal: Head Neck Date: 2021-11-10 Impact factor: 3.821