Pulmonary graft-versus-host disease and chronic lung allograft dysfunction: two sides of the same coin?

Allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) and lung transplantation are both established life-saving treatment options for carefully selected patients with various haematological disorders or end-stage lung diseases, respectively. However, long-term survival after allogeneic HSCT is severely limited by chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD)-of which pulmonary cGVHD in particular has a very poor prognosis-and long-term survival after lung transplantation is hampered by chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD). Both pulmonary cGVHD and CLAD are characterised by similar underlying immunopathology, which results in transplant-related pulmonary fibrosis and structural lung remodelling, leading to respiratory dysfunction. Accurate clinical identification and appropriate management is of utmost importance to allow for timely diagnosis, to further optimise current preventive and treatment strategies of pulmonary cGVHD and CLAD, and to ameliorate quality of life and long-term outcomes after allogeneic HSCT and lung transplantation. In this Review, we provide a unique state-of-the-art perspective of both entities for respiratory care practitioners.

Is there an optimal dose of cardiac rehabilitation in coronary artery disease patients?

BACKGROUND: Many studies have shown that participation in cardiac rehabilitation reduces long-term morbidity and mortality after myocardial infarction. Therefore, both American and European evidence-based guidelines recommend cardiac rehabilitation. However, it is still unclear what the optimal dose of cardiac rehabilitation is. METHODOLOGY: The study is a monocenter, retrospective cohort study. We identified patients with stable ischemic heart disease, who participated in at least one phase II center-based cardiac rehabilitation session between 2010 and 2015. A total of 609 patients were included in this study. RESULTS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 609 patients. Statistically significant baseline differences between the four groups were observed for index coronary artery revascularization technique, age, dual antiplatelet therapy and smoking status. A total of number of 84 patients (13.8%) had a MACE in the four-year follow-up period. After adjustment for all significant predictors in the univariate analysis, patients who attended 36 or more sessions had a 47% lower risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 0.92), patients who attended 24 to 35 sessions had a 68% lower risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15 to 0.67), patients who attended 12 to 23 sessions had a 56% lower risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 to 0.92) than those who attended 1 to 11 sessions. CONCLUSION: There is a clear clinical benefit from participating in more than 11 CR sessions. The best outcomes are achieved in patient who participated between 24 and 35 CR sessions. These results underline again the importance of improving participation and adherence to CR programmes in Europe.