Pulmonary rehabilitation in lung transplant candidates with pulmonary arterial hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) guidelines support the efficacy and safety of supervised exercise training in mild-moderate pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). However, the exercise training response and safety of PR in PAH lung transplant (LTx) candidates has not been described. OBJECTIVES: (1) characterize the clinical characteristics and illness trajectory of adult patients with severe PAH listed for LTx and participating in PR; (2) evaluate the change in exercise capacity, aerobic and resistance training volumes; (3) assess PR safety. METHODS: Single-centre retrospective cohort study of PAH LTx candidates listed January 2014-December 2018 attending a supervised, facility-based outpatient program three times per week. Functional capacity was evaluated using 6-min walk distance (6MWD). Aerobic and muscle training volumes were evaluated with paired comparisons. RESULTS: 40 PAH LTx candidates (age 50 ± 12 years, 73% females, mean pulmonary artery pressure 53 ± 16 mmHg) were included. The median listing duration was 91 [IQR 43-232] days. Sixteen patients (40%) had ≥1 admission pre-transplant. Nine patients (56%) were discharged home and resumed outpatient PR. Baseline 6MWD was 330 ± 119 metres (n = 40) with the final 6MWD pre-LTx increasing by 18 metres 95% CI (-18 to 56), p-value = 0.31, n = 25) over a median duration of 225 [IQR 70-311] days. Modest gains were observed in aerobic and resistance training volumes in PR with no adverse safety events. CONCLUSION: Despite progressive and severe disease in PAH LTx candidates, patients safely participated in PR and maintained exercise capacity. Given frequent admissions, physiotherapy during hospitalization should focus on preserving functional capacity and facilitating re-integration into outpatient PR post-discharge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".