Manual hyperinflation: consistency and modification of the technique by physiotherapists

Performance of manual hyperinflation: consistency and modification of the technique by intensive care unit nurses during physiotherapy

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To assess the consistency and safety of manual hyperinflation delivery by nurses of variable clinical experience using a resuscitator bag during physiotherapy treatment.

BACKGROUND

Manual hyperinflation involves the delivery of larger than normal gas volumes to intubated patients and is routinely used by nurses in collaboration with physiotherapists for the management of retained sputum. The aim is to deliver slow deep breaths with an inspiratory hold without unsafe airway pressures, lung volumes or haemodynamic changes. In addition, nursing staff should be able to 'feel' differences in resistance and adjust their technique accordingly.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study utilising the simulation of a mechanically ventilated patient.

METHODS

Thirty-three nurses delivered manual hyperinflation to a SimMan3G mannequin who had three distinct lung scenarios applied (normal; asthma; Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome) in randomised order during simulated physiotherapy treatment. Respiratory rate, tidal volume (Vt ), mean inspiratory flow rate (Vt /Ti), and peak airway pressure data were generated.

RESULTS

Over all scenarios, mean respiratory rate = 12·3 breaths/minute, mean Vt  = 638·6 mls, mean inflation time = 1·3 seconds and peak airway pressure exceeded 40 cm H2 O in 41% of breaths, although only in 10% of breaths during the 'normal' lung scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

Experienced nurses were able to manually hyperinflate 'normal' patients in a simulated setting safely. Despite their knowledge of barotrauma, unsafe airway pressures were delivered in some scenarios.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Training with regard to safe airway pressures, breath hold and adequate volumes is recommended for all nurses undertaking the procedure. Nurses and physiotherapists must closely monitor the patient's condition during manual hyperinflation thereby recognising changes with regard to lung compliance and airway resistance, with nurses responding by altering their technique. The addition of a pressure manometer in the circuit may improve patient safety when performing manual hyperinflation.

Experimental study on the efficiency and safety of the manual hyperinflation maneuver as a secretion clearance technique

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate, in a lung model simulating a mechanically ventilated patient, the efficiency and safety of the manual hyperinflation (MH) maneuver as a means of removing pulmonary secretions.

METHODS

Eight respiratory therapists (RTs) were asked to use a self-inflating manual resuscitator on a lung model to perform MH as if to remove secretions, under two conditions: as routinely applied during their clinical practice; and after receiving verbal instructions based on expert recommendations. In both conditions, three clinical scenarios were simulated: normal lung function, restrictive lung disease, and obstructive lung disease.

RESULTS

Before instruction, it was common for an RT to compress the resuscitator bag two times, in rapid succession. Proximal pressure (Pprox) was higher before instruction than after. However, alveolar pressure (Palv) never exceeded 42.5 cmH₂O (median, 16.1; interquartile range [IQR], 11.7-24.5), despite Pprox values as high as 96.6 cmH₂O (median, 36.7; IQR, 22.9-49.4). The tidal volume (VT) generated was relatively low (median, 640 mL; IQR, 505-735), and peak inspiratory flow (PIF) often exceeded peak expiratory flow (PEF), the median values being 1.37 L/s (IQR, 0.99-1.90) and 1.01 L/s (IQR, 0.55-1.28), respectively. A PIF/PEF ratio < 0.9 (which theoretically favors mucus migration toward the central airways) was achieved in only 16.7% of the maneuvers.

CONCLUSIONS

Under the conditions tested, MH produced safe Palv levels despite high Pprox. However, the MH maneuver was often performed in a way that did not favor secretion removal (PIF exceeding PEF), even after instruction. The unfavorable PIF/ PEF ratio was attributable to overly rapid inflations and low VT.

Benefits and risks of manual hyperinflation in intubated and mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients: a systematic review

Introduction

Manual hyperinflation (MH), a frequently applied maneuver in critically ill intubated and mechanically ventilated patients, is suggested to mimic a cough so that airway secretions are mobilized toward the larger airways, where they can easily be removed. As such, MH could prevent plugging of the airways.

Methods

We performed a search in the databases of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from January 1990 to April 2012. We systematically reviewed the literature on evidence for postulated benefits and risks of MH in critically ill intubated and mechanically ventilated patients.

Results

The search identified 50 articles, of which 19 were considered relevant. We included 13 interventional studies and six observational studies. The number of studies evaluating physiological effects of MH is limited. Trials differed too much to permit meta-analysis. It is uncertain whether MH was applied similarly in the retrieved studies. Finally, most studies are underpowered to show clinical benefit of MH. Use of MH is associated with short-term improvements in lung compliance, oxygenation, and secretion clearance, without changes in outcomes. MH has been reported to be associated with short-term and probably clinically insignificant side effects, including decreases in cardiac output, alterations of heart rates, and increased central venous pressures.

Conclusions

Studies have failed to show that MH benefits critically ill intubated and mechanically ventilated patients. MH is infrequently associated with short-term side effects.

Manual hyperinflation of intubated and mechanically ventilated patients in Dutch intensive care units--a survey into current practice and knowledge

BACKGROUND

In the daily bedside routine of the intensive care, potentially hazardous interventions that lack evidence need critical consideration. Therefore we examined current practice and knowledge of basic principles of manual hyperinflation (MH) in intubated and mechanically ventilated patients among intensive care unit nurses in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A written survey method was used, questionnaires were sent to ICU nurses specialised in mechanical ventilation in 115 Dutch hospitals. The questions related to following domains: (1) demographics; (2) use of MH; (3) presumed benefits; (4) essential elements of the MH procedure; (5) equipment and safety.

RESULTS

The response rate was 77%. From responding ICUs the majority (96%) stated they performed MH; 27% as a daily routine procedure, 69% performed MH on indication only. MH was mainly performed by ICU nurses. Half of ICUs reported to have a MH guideline available. Improved oxygenation and better removal of sputum were presumed benefits of MH. While slow inspiration and rapid expiration are considered to be essential elements of MH procedures, the majority of respondents stated to use rapid inspiration and slow expiration.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey indicates that MH is widely used as an important item of airway management. Importantly, there is no uniformity in the performance of the procedure. Before definitive research can be developed, standards for the MH procedure should be established.

Effects of manual hyperinflation and suctioning in respiratory mechanics in mechanically ventilated patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia

Ventilator-associated pneumonia results from bacterial colonisation of the aerodigestive tract or aspiration of contaminated secretions into the lower airways. As a consequence of infection of the lung parenchyma and alveolitis, accumulation of inflammatory exudates and infiltration of airway mucosa can lead to unfavourable respiratory mechanics in ventilator-associated pneumonia. Tracheal suction is often employed by nursing staff in the management of mechanically ventilated patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia but this technique has the potential to increase respiratory resistance. Manual hyperinflation is used by physiotherapists to improve lung volume and mobilise secretions and has been shown to increase lung compliance. The effect of manual hyperinflation on airway resistance has not been studied. This study aims to demonstrate an additional mechanical benefit to the respiratory system when manual hyperinflation and suction techniques are combined, by comparing the application of manual hyperinflation and suction with suction alone on static lung compliance (C(L)) and inspiratory resistance (R(AW)) in mechanically ventilated patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Fifteen adult patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia were recruited and acted as their own controls. Manual hyperinflation followed by suction (manual hyperinflation plus suction) and suction alone were applied consecutively, in random order, on two occasions, four hours apart. Respiratory variables, C(L) and R(AW), were measured five times and the averaged value documented. Data were recorded before, immediately after, and 30 minutes after each intervention protocol. C(L) increased by 22% and R(AW) decreased by 21%, up to 30 minutes after manual hyperinflation plus suction, but not after suction alone. This study suggests that manual hyperinflation in conjunction with suction induces beneficial changes in respiratory mechanics in mechanically ventilated patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia.

The effect on expiratory flow rate of maintaining bag compression during manual hyperinflation

Operator performance during the expiratory phase of manual hyperinflation appears to vary between physiotherapists for Mapleson-B or C circuits. Some physiotherapists release the valve but maintain compression of the bag, whereas others release both the valve and the bag. The effect of this difference on peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) has not been reported. The aim of this study was to document the effect of maintaining bag compression during expiration on PEFR and inspiratory to expiratory flow rate ratio (I:E). Six physiotherapists with experience using manual hyperinflation participated. A within-subjects repeated measures design was used. Subjects performed manual hyperinflation using a Mapleson-C circuit with 'rapid release', releasing the valve only, or releasing both the bag and the valve, during expiration in a test lung model. Inspiratory time was controlled using a metronome and flows were measured with a heated pneumotachometer. Maintaining bag compression significantly reduced PEFR (1.54 (0.08) vs 2.00 (0.07) l/sec, p = 0.008) and increased I:E flow rate ratio (0.65 (0.04) vs 0.50 (0.02), p = 0.02) for the Mapleson-C circuit at a 1.4 litre target volume. There were no significant differences for these measures between techniques when subjects emptied the bag. The effect needs to be confirmed in the clinical setting.