Abstract

Introduction. Whether the implementation of a multimodal prehabilitation program is effective and safe for high-risk heart or lung transplantation candidates, whose condition prevents hospital discharge, is unclear. Methods. We conducted a retrospective study at a cardiothoracic transplant center in Chile. Two cohorts of hospitalized patients listed for heart or lung transplant were studied: the first underwent traditional (historical) and nonstructured prehabilitation, and the second underwent protocol-driven multimodal prehabilitation (MP). Adverse events and preoperative functional changes in the MP group were documented, as well as comparative postoperative outcomes between both cohorts. Results. Between 2018 and 2023, 24 transplant recipients were analyzed. During the MP phase, significant improvement was observed in Medical Research Council scale (52.0 f 7 to 58.7 f 3; P = .042), sit-to-stand test (7.1 f 7 to 15.9 f 6; P = .018), and euthymic state (from 4 to 10 patients; P .036), without reported adverse events. Postoperatively, MP group demonstrated faster standing (1.9 f 0.7 vs 1.3 f 0.5 days; P = .05) and sitting times (2.0 f 0.7 vs 1.2 f 0.5 days; P = .007), with more early extubations (3 vs 11; P = .003) in comparison to the historical Conclusion. In this small retrospective study, MP in hospitalized patients awaiting heart or lung transplantation appears to be safe and associated with improvements in pre- and postoperative outcomes.