• Lung function
  
• Chest radiographic score -Brasfield Score
  
• Bronchoscopy score
  
• Days in hospital due to chest infection
  
• Antibiotic use
  
• Quality of Life – SF-36 Health Survey
  
• Functional exercise capacity - 6 minute walk test
  

• Patient adherence to the alternative protocols
  
• Patient satisfaction with the alternative protocols.
  

Very little is known about the effectiveness of chest physiotherapy protocols in lung transplant recipients.

Clinical practice is based upon the experiences of individual clinicians and generalisations from other patient populations.

There is anecdotal evidence (from discussion with physiotherapists at the European Cystic Fibrosis Conference, 2001) that some lung transplant centres are advising their patients to undertake daily (prophylactic) chest physiotherapy as part of their usual routine. They believe that this may compensate for the reduced stimulus to cough caused by the lack of vagal nerve supply to the transplanted lung/s.There is no evidence that this time consuming intervention is of any benefit to the patient in the short or longer term.

Some patients have bronchial anastomotic complications and dynamic airway collapse that may further impair secretion removal. The mechanical effects of Positive Expiratory Pressure (PEP) mask Physiotherapy, particularly its ability to splint open airways, provides a theoretical basis for why this technique may be beneficial to lung transplant recipients. We have also noted a clinical benefit in a small number of patients who have been treated with PEP.

This study aims to evaluate two chest physiotherapy protocols using a variety of outcome measures and act as a starting point for future/ongoing research in this important clinical area.

This study is a prospective randomised two month trail comparing two chest physiotherapy protocols in lung transplant recipients.

The protocols are:

Treatment A – Positive expiratory pressure (PEP) mask physiotherapy in upright sitting carried out only during chest infections

Treatment B – Positive expiratory pressure (PEP) mask physiotherapy in upright sitting performed twice daily as a prophylactic routine

The null hypotheses are:

1. Comparing Treatment A & B, there will be no difference in:

   • Lung function
   • Chest X ray (Brasfield scores)
   • Airway status (Bronchoscopy scores)
   • Days in hospital due to chest infection
   • Days on antibiotics
   • Exercise capacity (6 minute walk test)
   • Quality of life
2. There will be no difference in patient adherence to the alternative protocols.
3. There will be no difference in patient satisfaction with the alternative protocols.