Autogenic Drainage in Children With Cystic Fibrosis

Effectiveness of Autogenic Drainage in Improving Pulmonary Function in Patients with Cystic Fibrosis

The use of autogenic drainage (AD) in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) has been officially approved; therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the efficiency of the leading therapeutic techniques based on AD in patients with CF; Among patients with CF assessments were made of spirometric parameters, percent blood oxygen saturation, and the general feeling of the patients (Borg, VAS, and mMRC dyspnea scale) before and after therapy using AD, using AD in connection with a belt or a Simeox device and AD in combination with both a belt and Simeox device simultaneously. The best therapeutic effects were generated by the combination of AD with the belt and with the Simeox device. The greatest improvements were observed for FEV1, FVC, PEF, FET, saturation, and patient comfort. In patients <10.5 years of age, the increase in the level of FEV3 and FEV6 was significant in comparison to older patients. Due to their efficacy, therapies connected with AD should be applied not only in hospital departments but also during daily patient care. Given the particular benefits observed in patients <10.5 years of age, it is important to guarantee real accessibility to this form of physiotherapy, especially in this age group.

Autogenic drainage for airway clearance in cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Autogenic drainage is an airway clearance technique that was developed by Jean Chevaillier in 1967. The technique is characterised by breathing control using expiratory airflow to mobilise secretions from smaller to larger airways. Secretions are cleared independently by adjusting the depth and speed of respiration in a sequence of controlled breathing techniques during exhalation. The technique requires training, concentration and effort from the individual but it has previously been shown to be an effective treatment option for those who are seeking techniques to support and promote independence.  However, at a time where the trajectory and demographics of the disease are changing, it is important to systematically review the evidence demonstrating that autogenic drainage is an effective intervention for people with cystic fibrosis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness of autogenic drainage in people with cystic fibrosis with other physiotherapy airway clearance techniques.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, as well as two ongoing trials registers (02 February 2021). Date of most recent search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 06 July 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We identified randomised and quasi-randomised controlled studies comparing autogenic drainage to another airway clearance technique or no therapy in people with cystic fibrosis for at least two treatment sessions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and assessments of risk of bias were independently performed by three authors. The authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system. The authors contacted seven teams of investigators for further information pertinent to their published studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Searches retrieved 64 references to 37 individual studies, of which eight (n = 212) were eligible for inclusion. One study was of parallel design with the remaining seven being cross-over in design; participant numbers ranged from 4 to 75. The total study duration varied between four days and two years. The age of participants ranged between seven and 63 years with a wide range of disease severity reported. Six studies enrolled participants who were clinically stable, whilst participants in two studies received treatment whilst hospitalised with an infective exacerbation. All studies compared autogenic drainage to one (or more) other recognised airway clearance technique. Exercise is commonly used as an alternative therapy by people with cystic fibrosis; however, there were no studies identified comparing exercise with autogenic drainage. The certainty of the evidence was generally low or very low. The main reasons for downgrading the level of evidence were the frequent use of a cross-over design, outcome reporting bias and the inability to blind participants. The review's primary outcome, forced expiratory volume in one second, was the most common outcome measured and was reported by all eight studies; only three studies reported on quality of life (also a primary outcome of the review). One study reported on adverse events and described a decrease in oxygen saturation levels whilst performing active cycle of breathing techniques, but not with autogenic drainage. Seven of the eight included studies measured forced vital capacity and three of the studies used mid peak expiratory flow (per cent predicted) as an outcome. Six studies reported sputum weight. Less commonly used outcomes included oxygen saturation levels, personal preference, hospital admissions, intravenous antibiotics and pseudomonas gene expression. There were no statistically significant differences found between any of the techniques used with respect to the outcomes measured except when autogenic drainage was described as being the preferred technique of the participants in one study over postural drainage and percussion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Autogenic drainage is a challenging technique that requires commitment from the individual. As such, this intervention merits systematic review to ensure its effectiveness for people with cystic fibrosis, particularly in an era where treatment options are changing rapidly. From the studies assessed, autogenic drainage was not found to be superior to any other form of airway clearance technique. Larger studies are required to better evaluate autogenic drainage in comparison to other airway clearance techniques in view of the relatively small number of participants in this review and the complex study designs. The studies recruited a range of participants and were not powered to assess non-inferiority. The varied length and design of the studies made the analysis of pooled data challenging.

Chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in children

BACKGROUND

Pneumonia is a lung infection that causes more deaths in children aged under five years than any other single cause. Chest physiotherapy is widely used as adjuvant treatment for pneumonia. Physiotherapy is thought to help remove inflammatory exudates, tracheobronchial secretions, and airway obstructions, and reduce airway resistance to improve breathing and enhance gas exchange. This is an update of a review published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of chest physiotherapy with regard to time until clinical resolution in children (from birth to 18 years) of either gender with any type of pneumonia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (22 February 2018), Embase (22 February 2018), CINAHL (22 February 2018), LILACS (22 February 2018), Web of Science (22 February 2018), and PEDro (22 February 2018). We also searched clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) to identify planned, ongoing, and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type of chest physiotherapy with no chest physiotherapy for children with pneumonia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes of interest were mortality, duration of hospital stay, and time to clinical resolution. We used Review Manager 5 software to analyse data and GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three new RCTs for this update, for a total of six included RCTs involving 559 children aged from 29 days to 12 years with pneumonia who were treated as inpatients. Pneumonia severity was described as moderate in one trial, severe in two trials, and was not stated in three trials. The studies assessed five different interventions: effects of conventional chest physiotherapy (3 studies, 211 children), positive expiratory pressure (1 study, 72 children), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) (1 study, 94 children), bubble CPAP (bCPAP) (1 study, 225 children), and assisted autogenic drainage (1 studies, 29 children). The included studies were conducted in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Egypt, and South Africa. The studies were overall at low risk of bias. Blinding of participants was not possible in most studies, but we considered that the outcomes were unlikely to be influenced by the lack of blinding.All included studies evaluated mortality. However, three studies assessed mortality as an outcome, and only one study of bCPAP reported that deaths occurred. Three deaths occurred in children in the physiotherapy group (N = 79) and 20 deaths in children in the control group (N = 146) (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.90; 559 children; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether chest physiotherapy techniques (bCPAP, assisted autogenic drainage, and conventional chest physiotherapy) reduced hospital stay duration (days) (mean difference (MD) 0.10, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.76; 4 studies; low-quality evidence).There was variation among clinical parameters used to define clinical resolution. Two small studies found no difference in resolution of fever between children in the physiotherapy (conventional chest physiotherapy and assisted autogenic drainage) and control groups. Of five studies that considered peripheral oxygen saturation levels, only two reported that use of chest physiotherapy (CPAP and conventional chest physiotherapy) showed a greater improvement in peripheral oxygen saturation levels. However, it was unclear whether respiratory rate (breaths/min) improved after conventional chest physiotherapy (MD -2.25, 95% CI -5.17 to 0.68; 2 studies, 122 children; low-quality evidence). Two studies assessed adverse events (number of events), but only one study reported any events (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.67; 2 studies, 254 children; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We could draw no reliable conclusions concerning the use of chest physiotherapy for children with pneumonia due to the small number of included trials with differing study characteristics and statistical presentation of data. Future studies should consider the following key points: appropriate sample size with adequate power to detect expected differences, standardisation of chest physiotherapy techniques, appropriate outcomes (such as duration of leukocytosis, and airway clearance), and adverse effects.