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
Objective: There are widespread shortages of personal protective equipment as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Reprocessing filtering facepiece particle (FFP)-type respirators may provide an alternative solution in keeping healthcare professionals safe. Design: Prospective, bench-to-bedside. Setting: A primary care-based study using FFP-2 respirators without exhalation valve (3M Aura 1862+ (20 samples), Maco Pharma ZZM002 (14 samples)), FFP-2 respirators with valve (3M Aura 9322+ (six samples) and San Huei 2920V (16 samples)) and valved FFP type 3 respirators (Safe Worker 1016 (10 samples)). Interventions: All masks were reprocessed using a medical autoclave (17 min at 121°C with 34 min total cycle time) and subsequently tested up to three times whether these respirators retained their integrity (seal check and pressure drop) and ability to filter small particles (0.3–5.0 µm) in the laboratory using a particle penetration test. Results: We tested 33 respirators and 66 samples for filter capacity. All FFP-2 respirators retained their shape, whereas half of the decontaminated FFP-3 respirators showed deformities and failed the seal check. The filtering capacity of the 3M Aura 1862 was best retained after one, two and three decontamination cycles (0.3 µm: 99.3%±0.3% (new) vs 97.0±1.3, 94.2±1.3% or 94.4±1.6; p<0.001). Of the other FFP-2 respirators, the San Huei 2920 V had 95.5%±0.7% at baseline vs 92.3%±1.7% vs 90.0±0.7 after one-time and two-time decontaminations, respectively (p<0.001). The tested FFP-3 respirator (Safe Worker 1016) had a filter capacity of 96.5%±0.7% at baseline and 60.3%±5.7% after one-time decontamination (p<0.001). Breathing and pressure resistance tests indicated no relevant pressure changes between respirators that were used once, twice or thrice. Conclusion: This small single-centre study shows that selected FFP-2 respirators may be reprocessed for use in primary care, as the tested masks retain their shape, ability to retain particles and breathing comfort after decontamination using a medical autoclave.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the practice of ventilation management in patients with COVID-19. We aimed to describe the practice of ventilation management and to establish outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 in a single country during the first month of the outbreak.METHODS: PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicentre, retrospective observational study done at 18 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was a combination of ventilator variables and parameters over the first 4 calendar days of ventilation: tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), respiratory system compliance, and driving pressure. Secondary outcomes included the use of adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia and ICU complications. Patient-centred outcomes were ventilator-free days at day 28, duration of ventilation, duration of ICU and hospital stay, and mortality. PRoVENT-COVID is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04346342).FINDINGS: Between March 1 and April 1, 2020, 553 patients were included in the study. Median tidal volume was 6·3 mL/kg predicted bodyweight (IQR 5·7-7·1), PEEP was 14·0 cm H2O (IQR 11·0-15·0), and driving pressure was 14·0 cm H2O (11·2-16·0). Median respiratory system compliance was 31·9 mL/cm H2O (26·0-39·9). Of the adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia, prone positioning was most often used in the first 4 days of ventilation (283 [53%] of 530 patients). The median number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was 0 (IQR 0-15); 186 (35%) of 530 patients had died by day 28. Predictors of 28-day mortality were gender, age, tidal volume, respiratory system compliance, arterial pH, and heart rate on the first day of invasive ventilation.INTERPRETATION: In patients with COVID-19 who were invasively ventilated during the first month of the outbreak in the Netherlands, lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volume and low driving pressure was broadly applied and prone positioning was often used. The applied PEEP varied widely, despite an invariably low respiratory system compliance. The findings of this national study provide a basis for new hypotheses and sample size calculations for future trials of invasive ventilation for COVID-19. These data could also help in the interpretation of findings from other studies of ventilation practice and outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19.FUNDING: Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center.
DOCUMENT
