BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis is an inherited life-limiting disorder, characterised by pulmonary infections and thick airway secretions. Chest physiotherapy has been integral to clinical management in facilitating removal of airway secretions. Conventional chest physiotherapy techniques (CCPT) have depended upon assistance during treatments, while more contemporary airway clearance techniques are self-administered, facilitating independence and flexibility.OBJECTIVES: To compare CCPT with other airway clearance techniques in terms of their effects on respiratory function, individual preference, adherence, quality of life and other outcomes.SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group trials register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearching of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched CINAHL from 1982 to 2002 and AMED from 1985 to 2002. Date of most recent search: January 2004.SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials including those with a cross-over design where CCPT was compared with other airway clearance techniques. Studies of less than seven days duration were excluded.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers allocated quality scores to relevant studies and independently extracted data. If we were unable to extract data, we invited authors to submit their data. We excluded studies from meta-analysis when data were lost or study design precluded comparison. For some continuous outcomes, we used the generic inverse variance method for meta-analysis of data from cross-over trials and data from parallel-designed trials were incorporated for comparison. We also examined efficacy of specific techniques and effects of treatment duration.MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-eight publications were identified by the searches. Twenty-nine of these were included, representing 15 data sets with 475 participants. There was no difference between CCPT and other airway clearance techniques in terms of respiratory function measured by standard lung function tests. Studies undertaken during acute exacerbations demonstrated relatively large gains in respiratory function irrespective of airway clearance technique. Longer-term studies demonstrated smaller improvements or deterioration over time. Ten studies reported individual preferences for technique, with participants tending to favour self-administered techniques. Heterogeneity in the measurement of preference precluded these data from meta-analysis.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrated no advantage of CCPT over other airway clearance techniques in terms of respiratory function. There was a trend for participants to prefer self-administered airway clearance techniques. Limitations of this review included a paucity of well-designed, adequately-powered, long-term trials.
DOCUMENT
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 constant back pressure to the airways during expiration. This may improve clearance by building up gas behind mucus via collateral ventilation. Given the widespread use of PEP devices, there is a need to determine the evidence for their effect.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 STRATEGY: 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 2001. Most recent search of the Group's register: February 2006.SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies in which PEP was compared with any other form of physiotherapy in people with CF.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria to publications and assessed the quality of the included studies.MAIN RESULTS: Forty studies were identified and twenty-five studies involving 507 participants met the review inclusion criteria. Most included studies had low scores on a scale of study quality. Twenty of these studies involving 300 participants were cross-over in design. Data were not published in sufficient detail in most of these studies to perform meta-analysis.Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was the most frequently measured outcome. Single interventions or series of treatments continued for up to three months demonstrated no significant difference in effect between PEP and other methods of airway clearance on FEV1. Long-term studies had equivocal or conflicting results regarding the effect on FEV1. Participant preference was reported in nine studies. In all studies with an intervention period of at least one month, measures of participant preference were in favour of PEP. The results for the remaining outcome measures were not examined or reported in sufficient detail to provide any high level evidence.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no clear evidence that PEP was a more or less effective intervention overall than other forms of physiotherapy. There was limited evidence that PEP was preferred by participants compared to other techniques, but this finding is from studies of low quality.
DOCUMENT
INTRODUCTION: Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation (MI-E) is used as an airway clearance intervention in primary care (home ventilation), long-term care (prolonged rehabilitation after intensive care, neuromuscular diseases, and spinal cord injury), and increasingly in acute care in intensive care units (ICU).AIM: We sought to develop in-depth understanding of factors influencing decision-making processes of health care professionals regarding initiation, escalation, de-escalation, and discontinuation of MI-E for invasively ventilated patients including perceived barriers and facilitators to use.METHODS: We conducted focus groups (3 in the Netherlands; 1 with participants from four European countries) with clinicians representing the ICU interprofessional team and with variable experience of MI-E. The semi-structured interview guide was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Two researchers independently coded data for directed content analysis using codes developed from the TDF.RESULTS: A purposive sample of 35 health care professionals participated. Experience varied from infrequent to several years of frequent MI-E use in different patient populations. We identified four main themes: (1) knowledge; (2) beliefs; (3) clinical decision-making; and (4) future adoption.CONCLUSION: Interprofessional knowledge and expertise of MI-E in invasively ventilated patients is limited due to minimal available evidence and adoption. Participants believed MI-E a potentially useful intervention for airway clearance and inclusion in weaning protocols when more evidence is available.RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This focus group study provides an overview of current practice, knowledge and expertise, and barriers and facilitators to using MI-E in mechanically ventilated patients. From these data, it is evident there is a need to develop further clinical expertise and evidence of efficacy to further understand the role of MI-E as an airway clearance technique for ventilated patients.
DOCUMENT
