Anderson A, Alexanders J, Sinani C, Hayes S, Fogarty M
Physiotherapy Department, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK.
Sport, Health and Sciences Department, The University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Physiotherapy. 2015 Jun;101(2):103-10. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2014.07.006. Epub 2014 Oct 6.
Ventilator hyperinflation (VHI) and manual hyperinflation (MHI) are thought to improve secretion clearance, atelectasis and oxygenation in adults receiving mechanical ventilation. However, to the authors' knowledge, a systematic review of their relative effectiveness has not been undertaken previously.
To determine whether VHI is more effective than MHI for the improvement of clinical outcomes in adults receiving mechanical ventilation.
The electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINHAL Plus, Wiley Online Library, ScienceDirect and PEDro were searched from January 1993 until August 2013. OpenGrey, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the reference lists of all potentially relevant studies were also searched.
Full English reports of randomised clinical trials comparing at least one effect of VHI and MHI in adults receiving mechanical ventilation.
Included studies were appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The findings were synthesised using a purely qualitative approach.
All four included studies reported no significant differences in sputum wet weight, dynamic and static pulmonary compliance, oxygenation and cardiovascular stability between VHI and MHI.
All of the included studies had considerable limitations related to the protocols, equipment, participants and outcome measures. Furthermore, the overall risk of bias was judged to be high for three studies and unclear for one study.
Only four studies, all of which had a high or unclear risk of bias and significant additional limitations, have compared the effects of VHI and MHI in adults receiving mechanical ventilation. As such, further research in this area is clearly warranted.
机械通气时,通气机控制性肺膨胀(VHI)和手法控制性肺膨胀(MHI)被认为可改善成人患者的分泌物清除、肺不张及氧合。然而,据作者所知,此前尚未对它们的相对有效性进行系统评价。
确定在接受机械通气的成人患者中,VHI改善临床结局是否比MHI更有效。
检索1993年1月至2013年8月期间的电子数据库PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、CINHAL Plus、Wiley在线图书馆、ScienceDirect和PEDro。还检索了OpenGrey、对照试验元注册库(mRCT)以及所有潜在相关研究的参考文献列表。
比较VHI和MHI对接受机械通气成人患者至少一项效应的随机临床试验的英文全文报告。
采用Cochrane偏倚风险工具对纳入研究进行评价。采用纯定性方法综合研究结果。
所有4项纳入研究均报告,VHI和MHI在痰液湿重、动态和静态肺顺应性、氧合及心血管稳定性方面无显著差异。
所有纳入研究在方案、设备、受试者和结局指标方面均存在相当多局限性。此外,3项研究的总体偏倚风险被判定为高,1项研究的总体偏倚风险不明确。
仅有4项研究比较了VHI和MHI对接受机械通气成人患者的影响,所有这些研究的偏倚风险均高或不明确,且存在显著的其他局限性。因此,该领域显然有必要开展进一步研究。