Airway Clearance with Expiratory Flow Accelerator Technology: Effectiveness of the "Free Aspire" Device in Patients with Severe COPD

OBJECTIVES

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with a higher risk of pulmonary infections. This risk not only negatively affects patients' quality of life but also increases social and health costs. Hence, there is a need for an effective rehabilitative treatment including airway clearance. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the efficacy of a new tool for bronchial clearance based on expiratory flow accelerator (EFA) technology compared with positive expiratory pressure (PEP) treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty stable patients with COPD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 3-4 stage, were enrolled and allocated to treatment with EFA or Bubble-PEP (BP) for 20 days during a pulmonary rehabilitation program. At baseline and the end of treatment, the following parameters were measured: arterial blood gases (ABG); respiratory function, including peak cough expiratory flow (PCEF), maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), and maximal expiratory pressure exercise capacity using the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), dyspnea using the Medical Research Council scale, and quality of life using the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Expiratory flow accelerator showed a significant pre- and post-improvement in ABG and a significantly greater improvement than BP in PCEF, MIP, and 6MWT post-treatment.

CONCLUSION

Expiratory flow accelerator is a valid device compared with BP as an adjunctive therapy for the treatment of patients with severe COPD.

Is Telerehabilitation a Safe and Viable Option for Patients with COPD? A Feasibility Study

In patients with COPD non-naïve to rehabilitation we tested the feasibility, adherence and satisfaction of a home-based reinforcement telerehabilitation program (TRP). Outcomes were compared with a standard outpatient rehabilitation program (ORP). Then 18 TRP patients underwent 28 sessions of strength exercises (60 min) and cycle training (40 min) using a satellite platform provided telemonitoring, tele-prescription, video-assistance and phone-calls, patients were equipped with an oximeter, steps-counter, bicycle, remote control and interactive TV software. 18 matched ORP, retrospectively identified from our hospital ORP database, were used as controls. At baseline and end of program, the 6-min walking test (6MWT), Medical Research Council (MRC) scale and Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were administered. In TRP only, we assessed platform use, incremental exercise, steps walked/day and patient satisfaction. TRP patients completed all sessions without side effects, used the remote control 1,394 ± 2,329 times being in the 84% of the cases satisfied with the service. In 22% of the cases patients found the technology unfriendly. Each health-professional performed 46 ± 65 actions, 14.6 ± 2.12 phone calls and 1 ± 1.67 videoconference sessions per patient. TRP patients increased physical activity (3,412 vs. 1,863 steps/day, p = 0.0002). Both programs produced significant (all, p < 0.01) gains in 6MWT [meters, TRP +34.22 ± 50.79; ORP +33.61 ± 39.25], dyspnea [TRP - 0.72 ± 0.89; ORP - 0.94 ± 0.53] and SGRQ [TRP - 6.9 ± 9.96, ORP - 9.9 ± 12.92] without between-group differences. In conclusion, TRP is feasible and well accepted by patients, although sometimes technology was perceived as difficult. It seems to improve walking capacity, dyspnea, quality of life and daily physical activity. Future RCTs will demonstrate cost-effectiveness.