Randomized trial found inspiratory muscle training lowers dyspnea in postoperative cardiac patients, suggesting its role in rehabilitation.
Background: Postoperative dyspnea is a common complication following cardiac surgery, often attributed to respiratory muscle weakness and impaired pulmonary function. Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) has emerged as a non-invasive rehabilitation strategy to counteract these limitations, yet its efficacy in the immediate postoperative setting remains underexplored. Objective: To determine whether postoperative inspiratory muscle training reduces dyspnea and improves respiratory function in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted at two tertiary cardiac centers in Pakistan over 12 months. A total of 148 patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting or valve replacement were randomized into an intervention group receiving structured IMT from postoperative day three, and a control group receiving standard care. Dyspnea was assessed using the Modified Borg Dyspnea Scale. Pulmonary function was evaluated via forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁), and maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP). Assessments were performed at baseline, post-intervention (day 14), and 1-month follow-up. Statistical analysis was conducted using independent and paired t-tests for normally distributed data. Results: Patients in the intervention group showed significantly greater reductions in dyspnea scores at day 14 (2.9 ± 1.0) and at 1 month (1.8 ± 0.9) compared to controls (4.6 ± 1.1 and 3.9 ± 1.0, respectively; p < 0.001). Significant improvements were also observed in FVC, FEV₁, and MIP among the IMT group (p < 0.001). Adverse events were minimal and self-limiting. Conclusion: Postoperative inspiratory muscle training is an effective and safe intervention for reducing dyspnea and enhancing respiratory function in cardiac surgery patients, supporting its routine inclusion in early postoperative rehabilitation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kanwar et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: