Chest physical therapy (CPT) is a widely used intervention for patients with airway diseases. The main goal is to facilitate secretion transport and thereby decrease secretion retention in the airways. Historically, conventional CPT has consisted of a combination of forced expirations (directed cough or huff), postural drainage, percussion, and/or shaking. CPT improves mucus transport, but it is not entirely clear which groups of patients benefit from which CPT modalities. In general, the patients who benefit most from CPT are those with airways disease and objective signs of secretion retention (eg, persistent rhonchi or decreased breath sounds) or subjective signs of difficulty expectorating sputum, and with progression of disease that might be due to secretion retention (eg, recurrent exacerbations, infections, or a fast decline in pulmonary function). The most effective and important part of conventional CPT is directed cough. The other components of conventional CPT add little if any benefit and should not be used routinely. Alternative airway clearance modalities (eg, high-frequency chest wall compression, vibratory positive expiratory pressure, and exercise) are not proven to be more effective than conventional CPT and usually add little benefit to conventional CPT. Only if cough and huff are insufficiently effective should other CPT modalities be considered. The choice between the CPT alternatives mainly depends on patient preference and the individual patient's response to treatment.
MULTIFILE
Objective. After laryngectomy, the breathing resistance of heat and moisture exchangers may limit exercise capacity. Breathing gas analysis during cardiopulmonary exercise testing is not possible using regular masks. This study tested the feasibility of cardiopulmonary exercise testing with a heat and moisture exchanger in situ, using an in-house designed connector. Additionally, we explored the effect of different heat and moisture exchanger resistances on exercise capacity in this group. Methods. Ten participants underwent two cardiopulmonary exercise tests using their daily life heat and moisture exchanger (0.3 hPa or 0.6 hPa) and one specifically developed for activity (0.15 hPa). Heat and moisture exchanger order was randomised and blinded.Results. All participants completed both tests. No (serious) adverse events occurred. Only four subjects reached a respiratory exchange ratio of more than 1.1 in at least one test. Maximum exercise levels using heat and moisture exchangers with different resistances did not differ. Conclusion. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing in laryngectomees with a heat and moisture exchanger is feasible; however, the protocol does not seem appropriate to reach this group's maximal exercise capacity. Lowering heat and moisture exchanger resistance does not increase exercise capacity in this sample.
Airway care interventions may prevent accumulation of airway secretions and promote their evacuation, but evidence is scarce. Interventions include heated humidification, nebulization of mucolytics and/or bronchodilators, manual hyperinflation and use of mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E). Our aim is to identify current airway care practices for invasively ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICU) in the Netherlands. A self-administered web-based survey was sent to a single pre-appointed representative of all ICUs in the Netherlands. Response rate was 85% (72 ICUs). We found substantial heterogeneity in the intensity and combinations of airway care interventions used. Most (81%) ICUs reported using heated humidification as a routine prophylactic intervention. All (100%) responding ICUs used nebulized mucolytics and/or bronchodilators; however, only 43% ICUs reported nebulization as a routine prophylactic intervention. Most (81%) ICUs used manual hyperinflation, although only initiated with a clinical indication like difficult oxygenation. Few (22%) ICUs used MI-E for invasively ventilated patients. Use was always based on the indication of insufficient cough strength or as a continuation of home use. In the Netherlands, use of routine prophylactic airway care interventions is common despite evidence of no benefit. There is an urgent need for evidence of the benefit of these interventions to inform evidence-based guidelines.
