Department of Cystic Fibrosis, Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London SW3 6NP, UK.
J Cyst Fibros. 2010 May;9(3):187-92. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2010.01.004. Epub 2010 Feb 12.
Evidence indicates that there are no statistically significant differences in effectiveness among the airway clearance techniques (ACTs) of active cycle of breathing, autogenic drainage, positive expiratory pressure (PEP) or oscillating PEP in the short-term, but are there differences in the long-term (one year)? The objective of the study was to demonstrate non-inferiority in the long-term.
Seventy-five people with cystic fibrosis entered the prospective, randomised controlled trial of these five different ACTs. The primary outcome measure was forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)). Secondary outcome measures included exercise capacity and health related quality of life.
Using intention to treat, data were available on 65 subjects at the end of the study period. There were no statistically significant differences among the regimens in the primary outcome measurement of FEV(1) (p=0.35).
In different countries either one or several airway clearance regimens are used. This study provides evidence in support of current practices.
有证据表明，在短期（一个月）内，主动呼吸循环技术（ACT）中的气道廓清技术（ACT）之间，如主动呼吸循环、自主引流、呼气正压（PEP）或振荡 PEP，在疗效方面没有统计学上的显著差异，但在长期（一年）内是否存在差异？本研究的目的是证明在长期内没有劣效性。
75 名囊性纤维化患者参与了这项前瞻性、随机对照试验，比较了这五种不同的 ACT。主要的结局测量是一秒钟用力呼气量（FEV1）。次要结局测量包括运动能力和健康相关的生活质量。
采用意向治疗分析，在研究结束时，有 65 名受试者的数据可用。在主要结局测量 FEV1 方面，五种方案之间没有统计学上的显著差异（p=0.35）。
在不同的国家，要么使用一种气道廓清方案，要么使用几种。本研究为目前的实践提供了证据支持。
