Positive expiratory pressure - Common clinical applications and physiological effects

Positive expiratory pressure therapy versus other airway clearance techniques for bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

People with bronchiectasis experience chronic cough and sputum production and require the prescription of airway clearance techniques (ACTs). A common type of ACT prescribed is positive expiratory pressure (PEP) therapy. A previous review has suggested that ACTs including PEP therapy are beneficial compared to no treatment in people with bronchiectasis. However, the efficacy of PEP therapy in a stable clinical state or during an acute exacerbation compared to other ACTs in bronchiectasis is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this review was to determine the effects of PEP therapy compared with other ACTs on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), rate of acute exacerbations, and incidence of hospitalisation in individuals with stable or an acute exacerbation of bronchiectasis.Secondary aims included determining the effects of PEP therapy upon physiological outcomes and clinical signs and symptoms compared with other ACTs in individuals with stable or an acute exacerbation of bronchiectasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, PEDro and clinical trials registries from inception to February 2017 and we handsearched relevant journals.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled parallel and cross-over trials that compared PEP therapy versus other ACTs in participants with bronchiectasis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as outlined by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies involving 213 participants met the inclusion criteria, of which seven were cross-over in design. All studies included adults with bronchiectasis, with eight including participants in a stable clinical state and one including participants experiencing an acute exacerbation. Eight studies used oscillatory PEP therapy, using either a Flutter or Acapella device and one study used Minimal PEP therapy. The comparison intervention differed between studies. The methodological quality of studies was poor, with cross-over studies including suboptimal or no washout period, and a lack of blinding of participants, therapists or personnel for outcome measure assessment in most studies. Clinical heterogeneity between studies limited meta-analysis.Daily use of oscillatory PEP therapy for four weeks was associated with improved general health according to the Short-Form 36 questionnaire compared to the active cycle of breathing technique (ACBT). When applied for three sessions over one week, minimal PEP therapy resulted in similar improvement in cough-related quality of life as autogenic drainage (AD) and L'expiration Lente Totale Glotte Ouverte en Decubitus Lateral (ELTGOL). Oscillatory PEP therapy twice daily for four weeks had similar effects on disease-specific HRQOL (MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.19; low-quality evidence). Data were not available to determine the incidence of hospitalisation or rate of exacerbation in clinically stable participants.Two studies of a single session comparison of oscillatory PEP therapy and gravity-assisted drainage (GAD) with ACBT had contrasting findings. One study found a similar sputum weight produced with both techniques (SMD 0.54g (-0.38 to 1.46; 20 participants); the other found greater sputum expectoration with GAD and ACBT (SMD 5.6 g (95% CI 2.91 to 8.29: 36 participants). There was no difference in sputum weight yielded between oscillatory PEP therapy and ACBT with GAD when applied daily for four weeks or during an acute exacerbation. Although a single session of oscillatory PEP therapy was associated with less sputum compared to AD (median difference 3.1 g (95% CI 1.5 to 4.8 g; one study, 31 participants), no difference between oscillatory PEP therapy and seated ACBT was evident. PEP therapy had a similar effect on dynamic and static measures of lung volumes and gas exchange as all other ACTs. A single session of oscillatory PEP therapy (Flutter) generated a similar level of fatigue as ACBT with GAD, but greater fatigue was noted with oscillatory PEP therapy compared to ACBT alone. The degree of breathlessness experienced with PEP therapy did not differ from other techniques. Among studies exploring adverse events, only one study reported nausea with use of oscillatory PEP therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PEP therapy appears to have similar effects on HRQOL, symptoms of breathlessness, sputum expectoration, and lung volumes compared to other ACTs when prescribed within a stable clinical state or during an acute exacerbation. The number of studies and the overall quality of the evidence were both low. In view of the chronic nature of bronchiectasis, additional information is needed to establish the long-term clinical effects of PEP therapy over other ACTs for outcomes that are important to people with bronchiectasis and on clinical parameters which impact on disease progression and patient morbidity in individuals with stable bronchiectasis. In addition, the role of PEP therapy during an acute exacerbation requires further exploration. This information is necessary to provide further guidance for prescription of PEP therapy for people with bronchiectasis.

Effects of yoga (pranayama) on lung function and lactate kinetics in sedentary adults at intermediate altitude

Introducción. La medicina basada en evidencia clínica encuentra cada vez más beneficios del yoga en sus practicantes.Objetivo. Describir los efectos en la función pulmonar y la cinética del lactato ocasionados por la práctica de pranayamas en adultos con apariencia saludable.Materiales y métodos. Se realizó un estudio cuasiexperimental en adultos sedentarios sin experiencia en la práctica de yoga, quienes realizaron un estímulo durante 12 semanas con un frecuencia mínima de dos sesiones por semana. Se dividieron en un grupo de yoga (GY) y un grupo de control (GC). Se determinó composición corporal, presión arterial, frecuencia cardíaca, doble producto (DP), saturación periférica de oxígeno (SpO2), lactato en sangre (Lacts), hematocrito (Htc) por micrométodo, y espirometría previa y posterior a un plan de entrenamiento con pranayamas. Las variables analizadas fueron: capacidad vital forzada (CVF), volumen espiratorio forzado del primer segundo (VEF1) y relación VEF1/CVF.Resultados. Los resultados de la CVF, VEF1 y lactato presentaron diferencias significativas entre el GY y el GC (p<0.05), antes y después del estímulo en el GY (p<0.05). El doble producto mejoró en ambos grupos.Conclusiones. La práctica dirigida de pranayamas durante 12 semanas mejoró la CVF, el VEF1, el doble producto (p<0.05) y la capacidad de producción de lactato (capacidad anaeróbica).

The effects of respiratory physiotherapy after lung resection: Protocol for a systematic review

•

To investigate the effects of respiratory physiotherapy after lung resection surgery on mortality rate within 30 days after surgery.

•

Postoperative pulmonary complications within 30 days after surgery.

•

Length of stay in hospital postoperatively.

Background

The main treatment of lung cancer (stage 1 and 2) is lung resection surgery. The risk of postoperative pulmonary complications is high and therefore standard postoperative care involves respiratory physiotherapy. The purpose of this systematic review is to create an overview of the evidence on respiratory physiotherapy after lung resection surgery on mortality rate (within 30 days) and postoperative pulmonary complications.

Methods and analysis

The review will include randomized or quasi-randomized controlled studies investigating the effect of all types of respiratory physiotherapy on mortality and postoperative pulmonary complications after lung resection surgery. Furthermore, the effect of respiratory physiotherapy is evaluated on secondary outcomes such as length of hospital stay, lung volumes and function, and adverse events. The method of the planned review is described in this paper. The literature search will include the databases PubMed, Cochrane (Central), Embase, Cinahl and PEDro. The literature search is being performed in 2017. If meta-analyses are not undertaken, a narrative synthesis of the available data will be provided. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO on the 10th of October 2016 (registration number CRD42016048956).

Ethics and dissemination

Conclusion of this systematic review is expected available in the second half of 2017.

Comparing airways clearance techniques in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchiectasis: positive expiratory pressure or temporary positive expiratory pressure? A retrospective study

•

Patients with chronic hypersecretion (CH) of tracheobronchial mucus are a clinical challenge. They have an impaired quality of life, frequent exacerbations, and hospitalizations with need of antibiotics and other type of expensive treatments.

•

Chest physical therapy evolved along the last decades and new techniques are currently used to help patients clear the airways efficiently. Among these airway clearance techniques (ACTs), the use of positive expiratory pressure (PEP) is considered one of the most effective.

•

We report the retrospective evaluation of 162 patients with CH due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or bronchiectasis undergoing ACT in our Pulmonary Rehabilitation Department. They were treated either with PEP or with a new PEP device called UNIKO^®, which applies PEP in a temporary manner (TPEP).

•

Comparing the two groups of patients, both treatments (i.e., PEP and TPEP) were followed by great improvements in physiological parameters of spirometry and gas exchange. However, subdividing patients, it was evident that TPEP had better effects than PEP in patients with emphysema and in patients on long-term oxygen treatment, while PEP was superior at least in some parameters in patients on mechanical ventilation.

•

This study, albeit retrospective and calling for controlled clinical trials, suggests that different ACTs can be applied in different populations of patients.

Background

Airway clearance techniques include positive expiratory pressure, commonly used in our clinical practice, and a recently introduced temporary positive expiratory pressure device called UNIKO^®. It is unclear which one provides the best benefit to patients.

Objectives

The aim of this observational 4-year study was to retrospectively compare the efficacy of and specific indications for temporary positive expiratory pressure compared to positive expiratory pressure in a standard rehabilitation program.

Method

We retrospectively collected data from 162 subjects (107 males, mean age 70 ± 9 years, 97 with primary diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 65 with bronchiectasis), 51 treated with temporary positive expiratory pressure and 111 with positive expiratory pressure.

Results

Subjects showed significant improvement in ratio of partial pressure arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen (p < 0.001), forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in one second, peak expiratory flow, arterial oxygen saturation, and partial pressure arterial oxygen with no significant difference between positive expiratory pressure and temporary positive expiratory pressure groups apart from forced expiratory flow, which increased only in the positive expiratory pressure group. Evaluating specific subgroups, temporary positive expiratory pressure was more effective than positive expiratory pressure in improving gas transfer in subjects with emphysema and in those on oxygen therapy, as the effective supplement oxygen flow decreased significantly (p = 0.034 and 0.046 respectively for temporary positive expiratory pressure vs. positive expiratory pressure). In subjects on mechanical ventilation, positive expiratory pressure was superior to temporary positive expiratory pressure in increasing forced expiratory flow (p = 0.018).

Conclusion

The physiological parameters of both groups improved significantly and similarly. Subgroup analysis suggests that temporary positive expiratory pressure could provide some advantage to subjects with emphysema and those on oxygen therapy, while positive expiratory pressure would benefit patients on mechanical ventilation. Randomized clinical trials are necessary to confirm our preliminary results indicating that different subgroups/phenotypes can benefit more from one type of treatment.