Conventional chest physiotherapy compared to other airway clearance techniques for cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited life-limiting disorder. Over time persistent infection and inflammation within the lungs contribute to severe airway damage and loss of respiratory function. Chest physiotherapy, or airway clearance techniques (ACTs), are integral in removing airway secretions and initiated shortly after CF diagnosis. Conventional chest physiotherapy (CCPT) generally requires assistance, while alternative ACTs can be self-administered, facilitating independence and flexibility. This is an updated review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness (in terms of respiratory function, respiratory exacerbations, exercise capacity) and acceptability (in terms of individual preference, adherence, quality of life) of CCPT for people with CF compared to alternative ACTs.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 26 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (including cross-over design) lasting at least seven days and comparing CCPT with alternative ACTs in people with CF.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. pulmonary function tests and 2. number of respiratory exacerbations per year. Our secondary outcomes were 3. quality of life, 4. adherence to therapy, 5. cost-benefit analysis, 6. objective change in exercise capacity, 7. additional lung function tests, 8. ventilation scanning, 9. blood oxygen levels, 10. nutritional status, 11. mortality, 12. mucus transport rate and 13. mucus wet or dry weight. We reported outcomes as short-term (seven to 20 days), medium-term (more than 20 days to up to one year) and long-term (over one year).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies (778 participants) comprising seven short-term, eight medium-term and six long-term studies. Studies were conducted in the USA (10), Canada (five), Australia (two), the UK (two), Denmark (one) and Italy (one) with a median of 23 participants per study (range 13 to 166). Participant ages ranged from newborns to 45 years; most studies only recruited children and young people. Sixteen studies reported the sex of participants (375 males; 296 females). Most studies compared modifications of CCPT with a single comparator, but two studies compared three interventions and another compared four interventions. The interventions varied in the duration of treatments, times per day and periods of comparison making meta-analysis challenging. All evidence was very low certainty. Nineteen studies reported the primary outcomes forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)and forced vital capacity (FVC), and found no difference in change from baseline in FEV1 % predicted or rate of decline between groups for either measure. Most studies suggested equivalence between CCPT and alternative ACTs, including positive expiratory pressure (PEP), extrapulmonary mechanical percussion, active cycle of breathing technique (ACBT), oscillating PEP devices (O-PEP), autogenic drainage (AD) and exercise. Where single studies suggested superiority of one ACT, these findings were not corroborated in similar studies; pooled data generally concluded that effects of CCPT were comparable to those of alternative ACTs. CCPT versus PEP We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function or has an impact on the number of respiratory exacerbations per year compared with PEP (both very low-certainty evidence). There were no analysable data for our secondary outcomes, but many studies provided favourable narrative reports on the independence achieved with PEP mask therapy. CCPT versus extrapulmonary mechanical percussion We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared with extrapulmonary mechanical percussions (very low-certainty evidence). The annual rate of decline in average forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of FVC (FEF25-75) was greater with high-frequency chest compression compared to CCPT in medium- to long-term studies, but there was no difference in any other outcome. CCPT versus ACBT We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared to ACBT (very low-certainty evidence). Annual decline in FEF25-75 was worse in participants using the FET component of ACBT only (mean difference (MD) 6.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 11.45; 1 study, 63 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One short-term study reported that directed coughing was as effective as CCPT for all lung function outcomes, but with no analysable data. One study found no difference in hospital admissions and days in hospital for exacerbations. CCPT versus O-PEP We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared to O-PEP devices (Flutter device and intrapulmonary percussive ventilation); however, only one study provided analysable data (very low-certainty evidence). No study reported data for number of exacerbations. There was no difference in results for number of days in hospital for an exacerbation, number of hospital admissions and number of days of intravenous antibiotics; this was also true for other secondary outcomes. CCPT versus AD We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared to AD (very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the number of exacerbations per year; however, one study reported more hospital admissions for exacerbations in the CCPT group (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.42; 33 participants). One study provided a narrative report of a preference for AD. CCPT versus exercise We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared to exercise (very low-certainty evidence). Analysis of original data from one study demonstrated a higher FEV1 % predicted (MD 7.05, 95% CI 3.15 to 10.95; P = 0.0004), FVC (MD 7.83, 95% CI 2.48 to 13.18; P = 0.004) and FEF25-75 (MD 7.05, 95% CI 3.15 to 10.95; P = 0.0004) in the CCPT group; however, the study reported no difference between groups (likely because the original analysis accounted for baseline differences).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether CCPT has a more positive impact on respiratory function, respiratory exacerbations, individual preference, adherence, quality of life, exercise capacity and other outcomes when compared to alternative ACTs as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was no advantage in respiratory function of CCPT over alternative ACTs, but this may reflect insufficient evidence rather than real equivalence. Narrative reports indicated that participants prefer self-administered ACTs. This review is limited by a paucity of well-designed, adequately powered, long-term studies. This review cannot yet recommend any single ACT above others; physiotherapists and people with CF may wish to try different ACTs until they find an ACT that suits them best.

Chest physiotherapy for acute bronchiolitis in paediatric patients between 0 and 24 months old

BACKGROUND

Acute bronchiolitis is the leading cause of medical emergencies during winter months in infants younger than 24 months old. Chest physiotherapy is sometimes used to assist infants in the clearance of secretions in order to decrease ventilatory effort. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and updated in 2006, 2012, and 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of chest physiotherapy in infants younger than 24 months old with acute bronchiolitis. A secondary objective was to determine the efficacy of different techniques of chest physiotherapy (vibration and percussion, passive exhalation, or instrumental).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, PEDro (October 2011 to 20 April 2022), and two trials registers (5 April 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which chest physiotherapy was compared to control (conventional medical care with no physiotherapy intervention) or other respiratory physiotherapy techniques in infants younger than 24 months old with bronchiolitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Our update of the searches dated 20 April 2022 identified five new RCTs with 430 participants. We included a total of 17 RCTs (1679 participants) comparing chest physiotherapy with no intervention or comparing different types of physiotherapy. Five trials (246 participants) assessed percussion and vibration techniques plus postural drainage (conventional chest physiotherapy), and 12 trials (1433 participants) assessed different passive flow-oriented expiratory techniques, of which three trials (628 participants) assessed forced expiratory techniques, and nine trials (805 participants) assessed slow expiratory techniques. In the slow expiratory subgroup, two trials (78 participants) compared the technique with instrumental physiotherapy techniques, and two recent trials (116 participants) combined slow expiratory techniques with rhinopharyngeal retrograde technique (RRT). One trial used RRT alone as the main component of the physiotherapy intervention. Clinical severity was mild in one trial, severe in four trials, moderate in six trials, and mild to moderate in five trials. One study did not report clinical severity. Two trials were performed on non-hospitalised participants. Overall risk of bias was high in six trials, unclear in five, and low in six trials. The analyses showed no effects of conventional techniques on change in bronchiolitis severity status, respiratory parameters, hours with oxygen supplementation, or length of hospital stay (5 trials, 246 participants).  Regarding instrumental techniques (2 trials, 80 participants), one trial observed similar results in bronchiolitis severity status when comparing slow expiration to instrumental techniques (mean difference 0.10, 95% confidence interval (C) -0.17 to 0.37).  Forced passive expiratory techniques failed to show an effect on bronchiolitis severity in time to recovery (2 trials, 509 participants; high-certainty evidence) and time to clinical stability (1 trial, 99 participants; high-certainty evidence) in infants with severe bronchiolitis. Important adverse effects were reported with the use of forced expiratory techniques.  Regarding slow expiratory techniques, a mild to moderate improvement was observed in bronchiolitis severity score (standardised mean difference -0.43, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.13; I2 = 55%; 7 trials, 434 participants; low-certainty evidence). Also, in one trial an improvement in time to recovery was observed with the use of slow expiratory techniques. No benefit was observed in length of hospital stay, except for one trial which showed a one-day reduction. No effects were shown or reported for other clinical outcomes such as duration on oxygen supplementation, use of bronchodilators, or parents' impression of physiotherapy benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-certainty evidence that passive slow expiratory technique may result in a mild to moderate improvement in bronchiolitis severity when compared to control. This evidence comes mostly from infants with moderately acute bronchiolitis treated in hospital. The evidence was limited with regard to infants with severe bronchiolitis and those with moderately severe bronchiolitis treated in ambulatory settings. We found high-certainty evidence that conventional techniques and forced expiratory techniques result in no difference in bronchiolitis severity or any other outcome. We found high-certainty evidence that forced expiratory techniques in infants with severe bronchiolitis do not improve their health status and can lead to severe adverse effects. Currently, the evidence regarding new physiotherapy techniques such as RRT or instrumental physiotherapy is scarce, and further trials are needed to determine their effects and potential for use in infants with moderate bronchiolitis, as well as the potential additional effect of RRT when combined with slow passive expiratory techniques. Finally, the effectiveness of combining chest physiotherapy with hypertonic saline should also be investigated.

NIV in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: The 'when' and 'how' of the matter

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has become an essential part of the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) since 2006. NIV very significantly improves survival, quality of life and cognitive performances. The initial NIV settings are simple, but progression of the disease, ventilator dependence and upper airway involvement sometimes make long-term adjustment of NIV more difficult, with a major impact on survival. Unique data concerning the long-term adjustment of NIV in ALS show that correction of leaks, management of obstructive apnoea and adaptation to the patient's degree of ventilator dependence improve the prognosis. Non-ventilatory factors also impact the efficacy of NIV and various solutions have been described and must be applied, including cough assist techniques, control of excess salivation and renutrition. NIV in ALS has been considerably improved as a result of application of all of these measures, avoiding the need for tracheostomy in the very great majority of cases. More advanced use of NIV also requires pulmonologists to master the associated end-of-life palliative care, as well as the modalities of discontinuing ventilation when it becomes unreasonable.

Standard (head-down tilt) versus modified (without head-down tilt) postural drainage in infants and young children with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Postural drainage is used primarily in infants with cystic fibrosis from diagnosis up to the moment when they are mature enough to actively participate in self-administered treatments. However, there is a risk of gastroesophageal reflux associated with this technique.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of standard postural drainage (greater (30° to 45° head-down tilt) and lesser (15° to 20° head-down tilt)) with modified postural drainage (greater (30º head-up tilt) or lesser (15º to 20º head-up tilt)) with regard to gastroesophageal reflux in infants and young children up to six years old with cystic fibrosis in terms of safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Additional searches were conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov and on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for any planned, ongoing and unpublished studies.The date of the most recent literature searches: 20 January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled studies that compared two postural drainage regimens (standard and modified postural drainage) with regard to gastroesophageal reflux in infants and young children (up to and including six years old) with cystic fibrosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies to be included in the review, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies, including 40 participants, were eligible for inclusion in the review. The studies were different in terms of the age of participants, the angle of tilt, the reported outcomes, the number of sessions and the study duration. The following outcomes were measured: appearance or exacerbation of gastroesophageal reflux episodes; percentage of peripheral oxygen saturation; number of exacerbations of upper respiratory tract symptoms; number of days on antibiotics for acute exacerbations; chest X-ray scores; and pulmonary function tests. One study reported that postural drainage with a 20° head-down position did not appear to exacerbate gastroesophageal reflux. However, the majority of the reflux episodes reached the upper oesophagus. The second included study reported that modified postural drainage (30º head-up tilt) was associated with fewer number of gastroesophageal reflux episodes and fewer respiratory complications than standard postural drainage (30º head-down tilt). The included studies had an overall low risk of bias. Data were not able to be pooled by meta-analysis due to differences in the statistical presentation of the data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence regarding the comparison between the two regimens of postural drainage is still weak due to the small number of included studies, the small number of participants assessed, the inability to perform any meta-analyses and some methodological issues with the studies. However, it may be inferred that the use of a postural regimen with a 30° head-up tilt is associated with a lower number of gastroesophageal reflux episodes and fewer respiratory complications in the long term. The 20º head-down postural drainage position was not found to be significantly different from the 20º head-up tilt modified position. Nevertheless, the fact that the majority of reflux episodes reached the upper oesophagus should make physiotherapists carefully consider their treatment strategy.

WITHDRAWN: Bronchopulmonary hygiene physical therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

Bronchopulmonary hygiene physical therapy is a form of chest physical therapy including chest percussion and postural drainage to remove lung secretions. These are applied commonly to patients with both acute and chronic airway diseases. Despite controversies in the literature regarding its efficacy, it remains in use in a variety of clinical settings. The various forms of this therapy are labour intensive and need to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of bronchial hygiene physical therapy in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchiectasis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reference lists of articles up to January 2007. We also wrote to study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in which postural drainage, chest percussion, vibration, chest shaking, directed coughing or forced exhalation technique was compared to other drainage or breathing techniques, placebo or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria on masked publications independently. They assessed the trial quality independently. Only data from the first arm of crossover trials were included.

MAIN RESULTS

The seven included trials involved six comparisons and a total of 126 people. The trials were small and not generally of high quality. The results could not be combined as trials addressed different patient groups and outcomes. In most comparisons, bronchial hygiene physical therapy produced no significant effects on pulmonary function, apart from clearing sputum in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and in bronchiectasis. An update search carried out in January 2007 did not identify any new studies for inclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is not enough evidence to support or refute the use of bronchial hygiene physical therapy in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchiectasis.