Comparative Study
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Effectiveness of a perioperative pulmonary rehabilitation program following coronary artery bypass graft surgery in patients with and without COPD.

Purpose: It is unclear whether the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation program (PRP) after cardiac surgery differs between patients with and without COPD. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of PRP between patients with and without COPD undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

Patients and methods: We retrospectively included patients who underwent CABG surgery and received 3-week PRP from January 2009 to December 2013. We excluded patients who underwent emergency surgery, had an unstable hemodynamic status, were ventilator dependent or did not complete the PRP. Demographics, muscle strength, degree of dyspnea, pulmonary function and postoperative complications were compared.

Results: Seventy-eight patients were enrolled (COPD group, n=40; non-COPD group, n=38). Maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP; -34.52 cmH2 O vs -43.25 cmH2 O, P <0.01; -34.67 cmH2 O vs -48.18 cmH2 O, P <0.01), maximal expiratory pressure (MEP; 32.15 cmH2 O vs 46.05 cmH2 O, P <0.01; 37.78 cmH2 O vs 45.72 cmH2 O, P <0.01) and respiratory rate (RR; 20.65 breath/minute vs 17.02 breath/minute, P <0.01; 20.65 breath/minute vs 17.34 breath/minute, P <0.01) in COPD and non-COPD groups, respectively, showed significant improvement, but were not significantly different between the two groups. Forced vital capacity (FVC; 0.85 L vs 1.25 L, P <0.01), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1 ; 0.75 L vs 1.08 L, P <0.01), peak expiratory flow (PEF; 0.99 L vs 1.79 L, P <0.01) and forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of vital capacity (FEF25-75 ; 0.68 L vs 1.15 L, P <0.01) showed significant improvement between postoperative Days 1 and 14 in the COPD group. FVC (1.11 L vs 1.36 L, P <0.05), FEV1 (96 L vs 1.09 L, P <0.05) and FEF25-75 (1.03 L vs 1.26 L, P <0.05) were significantly improved in the non-COPD group. However, only PEF (80.8% vs 10.1%, P <0.01) and FEF25-75 (67.6% vs 22.3%, P <0.05) were more significantly improved in the COPD group than in the non-COPD group.

Conclusion: PRP significantly improved respiratory muscle strength and lung function in patients with and without COPD who underwent CABG surgery. However, PRP is more effective in improving PEF and FEF25-75 in COPD patients.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app