Flenady V J, Gray P H
Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Mater Hospital, Raymond Terrace, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 4101.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2002(2):CD000283. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000283.
This section is under preparation and will be included in the next issue.
To assess the effects of active chest physiotherapy on babies being extubated from mechanical ventilation for neonatal respiratory failure.
The standard search strategy for the Neonatal Review Group was used as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook in the Cochrane Library.
All trials utilising random or quasi-random patient allocation, in which active chest physiotherapy was compared with non-active techniques (eg positioning and suction alone) or no intervention in the periextubation period. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed by two independent authors.
Data were extracted independently by two authors. The data were analysed from 3 trials. Subgroup analysis was performed on different treatment frequencies.
In this review of 3 small trials, 2 of which were carried out 10 & 20 years ago, no clear benefit of periextubation active chest physiotherapy can be seen. Active chest physiotherapy did not significantly reduce the rate of postextubation lobar collapse (RR 0.69;0.33,1.45), though a reduction in the use of reintubation was shown in the overall analysis (RR 0.24;0.08,0.75). Subgroup analysis of different treatment frequencies showed the same effect with more frequent treatment (1 & 2 hourly) but showed a trend to increased lobar collapse, and no reduction in the use of reintubation, with less frequent treatment (4 hourly). There is insufficient information to assess other important short and long term outcomes, including adverse effects.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review do not allow development of clear guidelines for clinical practice. Caution is required when interpreting the possible positive effects of chest physiotherapy of a reduction in the use of reintubation and the trend for decreased post-extubation atelectasis as the numbers of babies studied are small, the results are not consistent across trials, data on safety are insufficient, and applicability to current practice may be limited.
本节正在编写中,将在下一期发表。
评估主动胸部物理治疗对因新生儿呼吸衰竭而撤机的婴儿的影响。
采用Cochrane图书馆中Cochrane手册所述的新生儿综述组标准检索策略。
所有采用随机或半随机患者分配的试验,其中将主动胸部物理治疗与非主动技术(如仅体位摆放和吸引)或拔管期不干预进行比较。每项试验的方法学质量由两名独立作者评估。
数据由两名作者独立提取。对3项试验的数据进行了分析。对不同治疗频率进行了亚组分析。
在这项对3项小型试验的综述中,其中2项试验分别在10年前和20年前进行,未发现拔管期主动胸部物理治疗有明显益处。主动胸部物理治疗并未显著降低拔管后肺叶萎陷的发生率(相对危险度0.69;95%可信区间0.33,1.45),尽管在总体分析中显示再次插管的使用率有所降低(相对危险度0.24;95%可信区间0.08,0.75)。不同治疗频率的亚组分析显示,更频繁治疗(每1至2小时一次)效果相同,但治疗频率较低(每4小时一次)时,肺叶萎陷有增加趋势,且再次插管使用率未降低。没有足够信息评估其他重要的短期和长期结局,包括不良反应。
本综述结果无法制定明确的临床实践指南。由于研究的婴儿数量少、各试验结果不一致、安全性数据不足且对当前实践的适用性可能有限,在解释胸部物理治疗可能具有的降低再次插管使用率和减少拔管后肺不张趋势的积极作用时需谨慎。