-
International Journal of Environmental... Nov 2021Regardless of the management regime for heart failure (HF), there is strong evidence supporting the early implementation of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR).... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Regardless of the management regime for heart failure (HF), there is strong evidence supporting the early implementation of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Respiratory therapy is considered to be an integral part of such secondary prevention protocols. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) on exercise tolerance and the functional parameters of the respiratory system in patients with heart failure involved in cardiac rehabilitation. The study included 90 patients with HF who took part in the second-stage 8-week cycle of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). They were randomly divided into three groups: Group I underwent CR and IMT; Group II only CR; and patients in Group III underwent only the IMT. Before and after the 8-week cycle, participants were assessed for exercise tolerance and the functional parameters of respiratory muscle strength. Significant statistical improvement concerned the majority of the hemodynamic parameters, lung function parameters, and respiratory muscle strength in the first group. Moreover, the enhancement in the exercise tolerance in the CR + IMT group was accompanied by a negligible change in the HR. The results confirm that the addition of IMT to the standard rehabilitation process of patients with heart failure can increase the therapeutic effect while influencing some of the parameters measured by exercise electrocardiography and respiratory function.
Topics: Aged; Breathing Exercises; Exercise Tolerance; Heart Failure; Humans; Muscle Strength; Respiratory Muscles; Respiratory Therapy
PubMed: 34886168
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182312441 -
Respiratory Care Jun 2017The Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference (PALICC) has provided the critical care community with the first pediatric-focused definition for ARDS. The PALICC...
The Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference (PALICC) has provided the critical care community with the first pediatric-focused definition for ARDS. The PALICC recommendations provide guidance on conventional ventilator management, gas exchange goals, use of high-frequency ventilation, adjunct management approaches, and the application of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for pediatric ARDS (PARDS). Although outcomes for PARDS have improved over the past decade, mortality and morbidity remain significant. Pediatric-specific criteria may provide the ability to more promptly recognize and diagnose PARDS in clinical practice. Improvements in prognostication and stratification of disease severity may help to guide therapeutic interventions. Improved comparisons between patients and studies may help to promote future clinical investigations. Hopefully, the recommendations provided by PALICC, in terms of defining and managing ARDS, will stimulate additional research to better guide therapy and further improve outcomes for critically ill infants and children with ARDS.
Topics: Child; Consensus; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; High-Frequency Ventilation; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn
PubMed: 28546374
DOI: 10.4187/respcare.05591 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016This Cochrane review was first published in 2005 and updated in 2007, 2012 and now 2015. Acute bronchiolitis is the leading cause of medical emergencies during winter in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This Cochrane review was first published in 2005 and updated in 2007, 2012 and now 2015. Acute bronchiolitis is the leading cause of medical emergencies during winter in children younger than two years of age. Chest physiotherapy is sometimes used to assist infants in the clearance of secretions in order to decrease ventilatory effort.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy of chest physiotherapy in infants aged less than 24 months old with acute bronchiolitis. A secondary objective was to determine the efficacy of different techniques of chest physiotherapy (for example, vibration and percussion and passive forced exhalation).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 9) (accessed 8 July 2015), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2015), MEDLINE in-process and other non-indexed citations (July 2015), EMBASE (1990 to July 2015), CINAHL (1982 to July 2015), LILACS (1985 to July 2015), Web of Science (1985 to July 2015) and Pedro (1929 to July 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which chest physiotherapy was compared against no intervention or against another type of physiotherapy in bronchiolitis patients younger than 24 months of age.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data. Primary outcomes were change in the severity status of bronchiolitis and time to recovery. Secondary outcomes were respiratory parameters, duration of oxygen supplementation, length of hospital stay, use of bronchodilators and steroids, adverse events and parents' impression of physiotherapy benefit. No pooling of data was possible.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 RCTs (1249 participants), three more than the previous Cochrane review, comparing physiotherapy with no intervention. Five trials (246 participants) evaluated conventional techniques (vibration and percussion plus postural drainage), and seven trials (1003 participants) evaluated passive flow-oriented expiratory techniques: slow passive expiratory techniques in four trials, and forced passive expiratory techniques in three trials.Conventional techniques failed to show a benefit in the primary outcome of change in severity status of bronchiolitis measured by means of clinical scores (five trials, 241 participants analysed). Safety of conventional techniques has been studied only anecdotally, with one case of atelectasis, the collapse or closure of the lung resulting in reduced or absent gas exchange, reported in the control arm of one trial.Slow passive expiratory techniques failed to show a benefit in the primary outcomes of severity status of bronchiolitis and in time to recovery (low quality of evidence). Three trials analysing 286 participants measured severity of bronchiolitis through clinical scores, with no significant differences between groups in any of these trials, conducted in patients with moderate and severe disease. Only one trial observed a transient significant small improvement in the Wang clinical score immediately after the intervention in patients with moderate severity of disease. There is very low quality evidence that slow passive expiratory techniques seem to be safe, as two studies (256 participants) reported that no adverse effects were observed.Forced passive expiratory techniques failed to show an effect on severity of bronchiolitis in terms of time to recovery (two trials, 509 participants) and time to clinical stability (one trial, 99 participants analysed). This evidence is of high quality and corresponds to patients with severe bronchiolitis. Furthermore, there is also high quality evidence that these techniques are related to an increased risk of transient respiratory destabilisation (risk ratio (RR) 10.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 78.8, one trial) and vomiting during the procedure (RR 5.4, 95% CI 1.6 to 18.4, one trial). Results are inconclusive for bradycardia with desaturation (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.0, one trial) and bradycardia without desaturation (RR 3.6, 95% CI 0.7 to 16.9, one trial), due to the limited precision of estimators. However, in mild to moderate bronchiolitis patients, forced expiration combined with conventional techniques produced an immediate relief of disease severity (one trial, 13 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
None of the chest physiotherapy techniques analysed in this review (conventional, slow passive expiratory techniques or forced expiratory techniques) have demonstrated a reduction in the severity of disease. For these reasons, these techniques cannot be used as standard clinical practice for hospitalised patients with severe bronchiolitis. There is high quality evidence that forced expiratory techniques in severe patients do not improve their health status and can lead to severe adverse events. Slow passive expiratory techniques provide an immediate and transient relief in moderate patients without impact on duration. Future studies should test the potential effect of slow passive expiratory techniques in mild to moderate non-hospitalised patients and patients who are respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) positive. Also, they could explore the combination of chest physiotherapy with salbutamol or hypertonic saline.
Topics: Acute Disease; Albuterol; Bronchiolitis; Bronchodilator Agents; Drainage, Postural; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy; Percussion; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Therapy; Sodium Chloride; Vibration
PubMed: 26833493
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004873.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited life-limiting disorder. Over time persistent infection and inflammation within the lungs contribute to severe airway damage and loss... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited life-limiting disorder. Over time persistent infection and inflammation within the lungs contribute to severe airway damage and loss of respiratory function. Chest physiotherapy, or airway clearance techniques (ACTs), are integral in removing airway secretions and initiated shortly after CF diagnosis. Conventional chest physiotherapy (CCPT) generally requires assistance, while alternative ACTs can be self-administered, facilitating independence and flexibility. This is an updated review.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness (in terms of respiratory function, respiratory exacerbations, exercise capacity) and acceptability (in terms of individual preference, adherence, quality of life) of CCPT for people with CF compared to alternative ACTs.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 26 June 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (including cross-over design) lasting at least seven days and comparing CCPT with alternative ACTs in people with CF.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. pulmonary function tests and 2. number of respiratory exacerbations per year. Our secondary outcomes were 3. quality of life, 4. adherence to therapy, 5. cost-benefit analysis, 6. objective change in exercise capacity, 7. additional lung function tests, 8. ventilation scanning, 9. blood oxygen levels, 10. nutritional status, 11. mortality, 12. mucus transport rate and 13. mucus wet or dry weight. We reported outcomes as short-term (seven to 20 days), medium-term (more than 20 days to up to one year) and long-term (over one year).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 studies (778 participants) comprising seven short-term, eight medium-term and six long-term studies. Studies were conducted in the USA (10), Canada (five), Australia (two), the UK (two), Denmark (one) and Italy (one) with a median of 23 participants per study (range 13 to 166). Participant ages ranged from newborns to 45 years; most studies only recruited children and young people. Sixteen studies reported the sex of participants (375 males; 296 females). Most studies compared modifications of CCPT with a single comparator, but two studies compared three interventions and another compared four interventions. The interventions varied in the duration of treatments, times per day and periods of comparison making meta-analysis challenging. All evidence was very low certainty. Nineteen studies reported the primary outcomes forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV)and forced vital capacity (FVC), and found no difference in change from baseline in FEV % predicted or rate of decline between groups for either measure. Most studies suggested equivalence between CCPT and alternative ACTs, including positive expiratory pressure (PEP), extrapulmonary mechanical percussion, active cycle of breathing technique (ACBT), oscillating PEP devices (O-PEP), autogenic drainage (AD) and exercise. Where single studies suggested superiority of one ACT, these findings were not corroborated in similar studies; pooled data generally concluded that effects of CCPT were comparable to those of alternative ACTs. CCPT versus PEP We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function or has an impact on the number of respiratory exacerbations per year compared with PEP (both very low-certainty evidence). There were no analysable data for our secondary outcomes, but many studies provided favourable narrative reports on the independence achieved with PEP mask therapy. CCPT versus extrapulmonary mechanical percussion We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared with extrapulmonary mechanical percussions (very low-certainty evidence). The annual rate of decline in average forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of FVC (FEF) was greater with high-frequency chest compression compared to CCPT in medium- to long-term studies, but there was no difference in any other outcome. CCPT versus ACBT We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared to ACBT (very low-certainty evidence). Annual decline in FEF was worse in participants using the FET component of ACBT only (mean difference (MD) 6.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 11.45; 1 study, 63 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One short-term study reported that directed coughing was as effective as CCPT for all lung function outcomes, but with no analysable data. One study found no difference in hospital admissions and days in hospital for exacerbations. CCPT versus O-PEP We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared to O-PEP devices (Flutter device and intrapulmonary percussive ventilation); however, only one study provided analysable data (very low-certainty evidence). No study reported data for number of exacerbations. There was no difference in results for number of days in hospital for an exacerbation, number of hospital admissions and number of days of intravenous antibiotics; this was also true for other secondary outcomes. CCPT versus AD We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared to AD (very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the number of exacerbations per year; however, one study reported more hospital admissions for exacerbations in the CCPT group (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.42; 33 participants). One study provided a narrative report of a preference for AD. CCPT versus exercise We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared to exercise (very low-certainty evidence). Analysis of original data from one study demonstrated a higher FEV % predicted (MD 7.05, 95% CI 3.15 to 10.95; P = 0.0004), FVC (MD 7.83, 95% CI 2.48 to 13.18; P = 0.004) and FEF (MD 7.05, 95% CI 3.15 to 10.95; P = 0.0004) in the CCPT group; however, the study reported no difference between groups (likely because the original analysis accounted for baseline differences).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain whether CCPT has a more positive impact on respiratory function, respiratory exacerbations, individual preference, adherence, quality of life, exercise capacity and other outcomes when compared to alternative ACTs as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was no advantage in respiratory function of CCPT over alternative ACTs, but this may reflect insufficient evidence rather than real equivalence. Narrative reports indicated that participants prefer self-administered ACTs. This review is limited by a paucity of well-designed, adequately powered, long-term studies. This review cannot yet recommend any single ACT above others; physiotherapists and people with CF may wish to try different ACTs until they find an ACT that suits them best.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Middle Aged; Cystic Fibrosis; Drainage, Postural; Physical Therapy Modalities; Quality of Life; Respiratory Therapy
PubMed: 37144842
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002011.pub3 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jun 2021This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide scientific evidence regarding the effects of training on respiratory muscle training's impact with the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Inspiratory Muscle Training Program Using the PowerBreath: Does It Have Ergogenic Potential for Respiratory and/or Athletic Performance? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide scientific evidence regarding the effects of training on respiratory muscle training's impact with the PowerBreath. A systematic analysis based on the guides and a conducted research structured around the bases of Web of Science, Scopus, Medline/PubMed, SciELO y Cochrane Library Plus. Six articles published before January 2021 were included. The documentation and quantification of heterogeneity in every meta-analysis were directed through Cochran's Q test and the statistic I; additionally, a biased publication analysis was made using funnel plots, whose asymmetry was quantified Egger's regression. The methodological quality was assessed through McMaster's. PowerBreath administering a ≥ 15% resistive load of the maximum inspiratory pressure (PIM) achieves significant improvements (54%) in said pressure within 4 weeks of commencing the inspiratory muscle training. The maximal volume of oxygen (VOmax) considerable enhancements was achieved from the 6 weeks associated with the maximum inspiratory pressure ≥ 21.5% post inspiratory muscle training onwards. Conversely, a significant blood lactate concentration decrement occurred from the 4th week of inspiratory muscle training, after a maximum inspiratory pressure ≥ 6.8% increment. PowerBreath is a useful device to stimulate sport performance and increase pulmonary function.
Topics: Athletic Performance; Breathing Exercises; Lung; Respiratory Muscles; Respiratory Therapy
PubMed: 34206354
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18136703 -
Critical Care (London, England) Dec 2020The efficacy and safety of high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) in patients with acute hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are unclear.... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The efficacy and safety of high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) in patients with acute hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the short-term effect of HFNT versus NIV in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, with the hypothesis that HFNT is non-inferior to NIV on CO clearance after 2 h of treatment.
METHODS
We performed a multicenter, non-inferiority randomized trial comparing HFNT and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in nine centers in Italy. Patients were eligible if presented with mild-to-moderate AECOPD (arterial pH 7.25-7.35, PaCO ≥ 55 mmHg before ventilator support). Primary endpoint was the mean difference of PaCO from baseline to 2 h (non-inferiority margin 10 mmHg) in the per-protocol analysis. Main secondary endpoints were non-inferiority of HFNT to NIV in reducing PaCO at 6 h in the per-protocol and intention-to-treat analysis and rate of treatment changes.
RESULTS
Seventy-nine patients were analyzed (80 patients randomized). Mean differences for PaCO reduction from baseline to 2 h were - 6.8 mmHg (± 8.7) in the HFNT and - 9.5 mmHg (± 8.5) in the NIV group (p = 0.404). By 6 h, 32% of patients (13 out of 40) in the HFNT group switched to NIV and one to invasive ventilation. HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV since the 95% confidence interval (CI) upper boundary of absolute difference in mean PaCO reduction did not reach the non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg (absolute difference 2.7 mmHg; 1-sided 95% CI 6.1; p = 0.0003). Both treatments had a significant effect on PaCO reductions over time, and trends were similar between groups. Similar results were found in both per-protocol at 6 h and intention-to-treat analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV as initial ventilatory support in decreasing PaCO after 2 h of treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, considering a non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg. However, 32% of patients receiving HFNT required NIV by 6 h. Further trials with superiority design should evaluate efficacy toward stronger patient-related outcomes and safety of HFNT in AECOPD.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The study was prospectively registered on December 12, 2017, in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03370666).
Topics: Aged; Cannula; Equivalence Trials as Topic; Female; Humans; Italy; Male; Middle Aged; Noninvasive Ventilation; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Symptom Flare Up
PubMed: 33317579
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-020-03409-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019Cystic fibrosis is a life-limiting genetic condition in which thick mucus builds up in the lungs, leading to infections, inflammation, and eventually, deterioration in...
BACKGROUND
Cystic fibrosis is a life-limiting genetic condition in which thick mucus builds up in the lungs, leading to infections, inflammation, and eventually, deterioration in lung function. To clear their lungs of mucus, people with cystic fibrosis perform airway clearance techniques daily. There are various airway clearance techniques, which differ in terms of the need for assistance or equipment, and cost.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews on the effectiveness and safety of various airway clearance techniques in people with cystic fibrosis.
METHODS
For this overview, we included Cochrane Reviews of randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (including cross-over trials) that evaluated an airway clearance technique (conventional chest physiotherapy, positive expiratory pressure (PEP) therapy, high-pressure PEP therapy, active cycle of breathing techniques, autogenic drainage, airway oscillating devices, external high frequency chest compression devices and exercise) in people with cystic fibrosis.We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 29 November 2018.Two review authors independently evaluated reviews for eligibility. One review author extracted data from included reviews and a second author checked the data for accuracy. Two review authors independently graded the quality of reviews using the ROBIS tool. We used the GRADE approach for assessing the overall strength of the evidence for each primary outcome (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV), individual preference and quality of life).
MAIN RESULTS
We included six Cochrane Reviews, one of which compared any type of chest physiotherapy with no chest physiotherapy or coughing alone and the remaining five reviews included head-to-head comparisons of different airway clearance techniques. All the reviews were considered to have a low risk of bias. However, the individual trials included in the reviews often did not report sufficient information to adequately assess risk of bias. Many trials did not sufficiently report on outcome measures and had a high risk of reporting bias.We are unable to draw definitive conclusions for comparisons of airway clearance techniques in terms of FEV, except for reporting no difference between PEP therapy and oscillating devices after six months of treatment, mean difference -1.43% predicted (95% confidence interval -5.72 to 2.87); the quality of the body of evidence was graded as moderate. The quality of the body of evidence comparing different airway clearance techniques for other outcomes was either low or very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is little evidence to support the use of one airway clearance technique over another. People with cystic fibrosis should choose the airway clearance technique that best meets their needs, after considering comfort, convenience, flexibility, practicality, cost, or some other factor. More long-term, high-quality randomised controlled trials comparing airway clearance techniques among people with cystic fibrosis are needed.
Topics: Chest Wall Oscillation; Cystic Fibrosis; Drainage; Humans; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Respiratory Therapy; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 30676656
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011231.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2019Chest physiotherapy is widely prescribed to assist the clearance of airway secretions in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). Positive expiratory pressure (PEP) devices... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chest physiotherapy is widely prescribed to assist the clearance of airway secretions in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). Positive expiratory pressure (PEP) devices provide back pressure to the airways during expiration. This may improve clearance by building up gas behind mucus via collateral ventilation and by temporarily increasing functional residual capacity. The developers of the PEP technique recommend using PEP with a mask in order to avoid air leaks via the upper airways and mouth. In addition, increasing forced residual capacity (FRC) has not been demonstrated using mouthpiece PEP. Given the widespread use of PEP devices, there is a need to determine the evidence for their effect. This is an update of a previously published review.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and acceptability of PEP devices compared to other forms of physiotherapy as a means of improving mucus clearance and other outcomes in people with CF.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. The electronic database CINAHL was also searched from 1982 to 2017. Most recent search of the Group's CF Trials Register: 20 February 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled studies in which PEP was compared with any other form of physiotherapy in people with CF. This included, postural drainage and percussion (PDPV), active cycle of breathing techniques (ACBT), oscillating PEP devices, thoracic oscillating devices, bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPaP) and exercise.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three authors independently applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria to publications, assessed the risk of bias of the included studies and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE recommendations.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 28 studies (involving 788 children and adults) were included in the review; 18 studies involving 296 participants were cross-over in design. Data were not published in sufficient detail in most of these studies to perform any meta-analysis. In 22 of the 28 studies the PEP technique was performed using a mask, in three of the studies a mouthpiece was used with nose clips and in three studies it was unclear whether a mask or mouthpiece was used. These studies compared PEP to ACBT, autogenic drainage (AD), oral oscillating PEP devices, high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO) and BiPaP and exercise. Forced expiratory volume in one second was the review's primary outcome and the most frequently reported outcome in the studies (24 studies, 716 participants). Single interventions or series of treatments that continued for up to three months demonstrated little or no difference in effect between PEP and other methods of airway clearance on this outcome (low- to moderate-quality evidence). However, long-term studies had equivocal or conflicting results regarding the effect on this outcome (low- to moderate-quality evidence). A second primary outcome was the number of respiratory exacerbations. There was a lower exacerbation rate in participants using PEP compared to other techniques when used with a mask for at least one year (five studies, 232 participants; moderate- to high-quality evidence). In one of the included studies which used PEP with a mouthpiece, it was reported (personal communication) that there was no difference in the number of respiratory exacerbations (66 participants, low-quality evidence). Participant preference was reported in 10 studies; and in all studies with an intervention period of at least one month, this was in favour of PEP. The results for the remaining outcome measures (including our third primary outcome of mucus clearance) were not examined or reported in sufficient detail to provide any high-quality evidence; only very low- to moderate-quality evidence was available for other outcomes. There was limited evidence reported on adverse events; these were measured in five studies, two of which found no events. In a study where infants performing either PEP or PDPV experienced some gastro-oesophageal reflux , this was more severe in the PDPV group (26 infants, low-quality evidence). In PEP versus oscillating PEP, adverse events were only reported in the flutter group (five participants complained of dizziness, which improved after further instructions on device use was provided) (22 participants, low-quality evidence). In PEP versus HFCWO, from one long-term high-quality study (107 participants) there was little or no difference in terms of number of adverse events; however, those in the PEP group had fewer adverse events related to the lower airways when compared to HFCWO (high-certainty evidence). Many studies had a risk of bias as they did not report how the randomisation sequence was either generated or concealed. Most studies reported the number of dropouts and also reported on all planned outcome measures.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence provided by this review is of variable quality, but suggests that all techniques and devices described may have a place in the clinical treatment of people with CF. Following meta-analyses of the effects of PEP versus other airway clearance techniques on lung function and patient preference, this Cochrane Review demonstrated that there was high-quality evidence that showed a significant reduction in pulmonary exacerbations when PEP using a mask was compared with HFCWO. It is important to note that airway clearance techniques should be individualised throughout life according to developmental stages, patient preferences, pulmonary symptoms and lung function. This also applies as conditions vary between baseline function and pulmonary exacerbations.
Topics: Cystic Fibrosis; Drainage, Postural; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Mucociliary Clearance; Mucus; Physical Therapy Modalities; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Therapy
PubMed: 31774149
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003147.pub5 -
Thorax Sep 2016In patients who have been mechanically ventilated, inspiratory muscles remain weak and fatigable following ventilatory weaning, which may contribute to dyspnoea and... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
In patients who have been mechanically ventilated, inspiratory muscles remain weak and fatigable following ventilatory weaning, which may contribute to dyspnoea and limited functional recovery. Inspiratory muscle training may improve inspiratory muscle strength and endurance following weaning, potentially improving dyspnoea and quality of life in this patient group.
METHODS
We conducted a randomised trial with assessor-blinding and intention-to-treat analysis. Following 48 hours of successful weaning, 70 participants (mechanically ventilated ≥7 days) were randomised to receive inspiratory muscle training once daily 5 days/week for 2 weeks in addition to usual care, or usual care (control). Primary endpoints were inspiratory muscle strength and fatigue resistance index (FRI) 2 weeks following enrolment. Secondary endpoints included dyspnoea, physical function and quality of life, post-intensive care length of stay and in-hospital mortality.
RESULTS
34 participants were randomly allocated to the training group and 36 to control. The training group demonstrated greater improvements in inspiratory strength (training: 17%, control: 6%, mean difference: 11%, p=0.02). There were no statistically significant differences in FRI (0.03 vs 0.02, p=0.81), physical function (0.25 vs 0.25, p=0.97) or dyspnoea (-0.5 vs 0.2, p=0.22). Improvement in quality of life was greater in the training group (14% vs 2%, mean difference 12%, p=0.03). In-hospital mortality was higher in the training group (4 vs 0, 12% vs 0%, p=0.051).
CONCLUSIONS
Inspiratory muscle training following successful weaning increases inspiratory muscle strength and quality of life, but we cannot confidently rule out an associated increased risk of in-hospital mortality.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
ACTRN12610001089022, results.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Breathing Exercises; Dyspnea; Female; Humans; Inhalation; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Compliance; Quality of Life; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Muscles; Respiratory Therapy; Single-Blind Method; Ventilator Weaning
PubMed: 27257003
DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208279 -
Respiratory Care Sep 2021The word "quality" refers to the features of a product or service to which a certain value is ascribed. When it comes to hospital-based practices, quality has often been... (Review)
Review
The word "quality" refers to the features of a product or service to which a certain value is ascribed. When it comes to hospital-based practices, quality has often been considered to be specific to the care provided. However, this specific perspective is transitioning toward a broader concept after the evolution of quality-improvement projects and quality frameworks at the organizational level. Respiratory therapy departments have been identified as an essential part of any hospital because the key nature of discipline for respiratory therapists is widely understood. Due to their professional accountability and professional values, respiratory therapists often have administrative roles in infection control practices and quality-improvement projects. Therefore, it would be ideal to have a core team of respiratory therapists trained in quality management and to initiate quality-improvement processes at the departmental level. Every respiratory therapy department should have its own quality-improvement team to assist with the process of training, implementation, and analysis. Thus, this article aimed to discuss the role of respiratory therapists and respiratory therapy departments in quality-improvement processes and projects to set benchmarks and enhance outcomes.
Topics: Hospitals; Humans; Quality Improvement; Respiratory Therapy
PubMed: 34408082
DOI: 10.4187/respcare.08820