BackgroundHigh-frequency airway clearance (HFCWC) assist devices generate either positive or negative trans-respiratory pressure excursions to produce high-frequency, small-volume oscillations in the airways.HFCWC can lead to changes in volume of 15–57 ml and in flow up to 1.6 L/s, which generate minimal coughing to mobilize secretions. The typical treatment lasts 20–30 minutes, and consists of short periods of compression at different frequencies, separated by coughing.The aim of this study was to find the more efficacious treatment in patients with bronchiectasis: traditional techniques of chest physiotherapy (CPT) versus high frequency oscillation of the chest wall in patients with bronchiectasis.Methods37 patients were enrolled. Seven of them were excluded. Computer randomization divided the patients into three groups:– 10 patients treated with HFCWO by using the Vest® Airway Clearance System;– 10 patients treated with traditional techniques of air way clearance (PEP bottle, PEP mask, ELTGOL, vibratory positive expiratory pressure);– 10 patients received medical therapy only (control group).To be eligible for enrollment, participants had to be between 18 and 85 years old and have a diagnosis of bronchiectasis, confirmed on high resolution computed tomography. Exclusion criteria: lack of informed consent, signs of exacerbation, cystic fibrosis. Before the treatment, each patient had blood tests, sputum volume and cell count, pulmonary function tests and on the quality of life inventories (MMRC, CAT, BCSS). The results were processed through the covariance analysis, performed with the R-Project statistical program. It has been considered a positive result p <005.ResultsBoth treatments (traditional CPT and HFCWO) showed a significant improvement in some biochemical and functional respiratory tests as well as in the quality of life compared to the control group. The use of HFCWO compared to CPT also produced a significant improvement in blood inflammation parameter C-RP (p ≤0.019), parameters of lung functionality associated with bronchial obstruction (FVC, FEV1) (p ≤0.006 and p ≤0.001), and in the dyspnea. Improvement in quality of life scales was noted. (BCSS, CAT) (both p ≤0.001). No significant changes of total cell counts in sputum samples were observed in the two groups. In the HFCWO group a significant reduction of neutrophils percentage (p≤0.002) and a significant increase of macrophages percentage (p ≤0.012).ConclusionsThe HFCWO technique provides an improvement both in pulmonary function and quality of life related parameters in patients with chronic hypersecretive disease. Since those patients need daily airway clearance, this treatment should be included among the principal options in chest physiotherapy. The study was registered as ChiCTR-TRC-12002134 at http://www.chictr.org.
PurposeChest physiotherapy is an important tool in the treatment of COPD. Intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (IPV) and high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO) are techniques designed to create a global percussion of the lung which removes secretions and probably clears the peripheral bronchial tree. We tested the hypothesis that adding IPV or HFCWO to the best pharmacological therapy (PT) may provide additional clinical benefit over chest physiotherapy in patients with severe COPD.MethodsSixty patients were randomized into three groups (20 patients in each group): IPV group (treated with PT and IPV), PT group with (treated with PT and HFCWO), and control group (treated with PT alone). Primary outcome measures included results on the dyspnea scale (modified Medical Research Council) and Breathlessness, Cough, and Sputum scale (BCSS), as well as an evaluation of daily life activity (COPD Assessment Test [CAT]). Secondary outcome measures were pulmonary function testing, arterial blood gas analysis, and hematological examinations. Moreover, sputum cell counts were performed at the beginning and at the end of the study.ResultsPatients in both the IPV group and the HFCWO group showed a significant improvement in the tests of dyspnea and daily life activity evaluations (modified Medical Research Council scale, BCSS, and CAT) compared to the control group, as well as in pulmonary function tests (forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity%, total lung capacity, residual volume, diffusing lung capacity monoxide, maximal inspiratory pressure, maximal expiratory pressure) and arterial blood gas values. However, in the group comparison analysis for the same variables between IPV group and HFCWO group, we observed a significant improvement in the IPV group maximal inspiratory pressure, maximal expiratory pressure, BCSS, and CAT. Similar results were observed in changes of sputum cytology with reduction of inflammatory cells (neutrophils and macrophages).ConclusionThe two techniques improved daily life activities and lung function in patients with severe COPD. IPV demonstrated a significantly greater effectiveness in improving some pulmonary function tests linked to the small bronchial airways obstruction and respiratory muscle strength and scores on health status assessment scales (BCSS and CAT) as well as a reduction of sputum inflammatory cells compared with HFCWO.
OBJECTIVE: Thoracentesis is one of the bedside procedures most commonly associated with iatrogenic complications, particularly pneumothorax. Various risk factors for complications associated with thoracentesis have recently been identified, including an inexperienced operator; an inadequate or inexperienced support team; the lack of a standardized protocol; and the lack of ultrasound guidance. We sought to determine whether ultrasound-guided thoracentesis can reduce the risk of pneumothorax and improve outcomes (fewer procedures without fluid removal and greater volumes of fluid removed during the procedures). In our comparison of thoracentesis with and without ultrasound guidance, all procedures were performed by a team of expert pulmonologists, using the same standardized protocol in both conditions.METHODS: A total of 160 participants were randomly allocated to undergo thoracentesis with or without ultrasound guidance (n = 80 per group). The primary outcome was pneumothorax following thoracentesis. Secondary outcomes included the number of procedures without fluid removal and the volume of fluid drained during the procedure.RESULTS: Pneumothorax occurred in 1 of the 80 patients who underwent ultrasound-guided thoracentesis and in 10 of the 80 patients who underwent thoracentesis without ultrasound guidance, the difference being statistically significant (p = 0.009). Fluid was removed in 79 of the 80 procedures performed with ultrasound guidance and in 72 of the 80 procedures performed without it. The mean volume of fluid drained was larger during the former than during the latter (960 ± 500 mL vs. 770 ± 480 mL), the difference being statistically significant (p = 0.03).CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guidance increases the yield of thoracentesis and reduces the risk of post-procedure pneumothorax. (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry identifier: ChiCTR-TRC-12002174 [http://www.chictr.org/en/])
Successful treatment is strongly related to less severe illness as well as to a good initial and sustained response to medical therapy and NIV treatment. Constant monitoring of these patients is mandatory.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.