Roqué i Figuls Marta, Giné-Garriga Maria, Granados Rugeles Claudia, Perrotta Carla, Vilaró Jordi
Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Sant Antoni Maria Claret 171, Edifici Casa de Convalescència, Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain, 08041.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 1;2(2):CD004873. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004873.pub5.
This Cochrane review was first published in 2005 and updated in 2007, 2012 and now 2015. Acute bronchiolitis is the leading cause of medical emergencies during winter in children younger than two years of age. Chest physiotherapy is sometimes used to assist infants in the clearance of secretions in order to decrease ventilatory effort.
To determine the efficacy of chest physiotherapy in infants aged less than 24 months old with acute bronchiolitis. A secondary objective was to determine the efficacy of different techniques of chest physiotherapy (for example, vibration and percussion and passive forced exhalation).
We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 9) (accessed 8 July 2015), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2015), MEDLINE in-process and other non-indexed citations (July 2015), EMBASE (1990 to July 2015), CINAHL (1982 to July 2015), LILACS (1985 to July 2015), Web of Science (1985 to July 2015) and Pedro (1929 to July 2015).
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which chest physiotherapy was compared against no intervention or against another type of physiotherapy in bronchiolitis patients younger than 24 months of age.
Two review authors independently extracted data. Primary outcomes were change in the severity status of bronchiolitis and time to recovery. Secondary outcomes were respiratory parameters, duration of oxygen supplementation, length of hospital stay, use of bronchodilators and steroids, adverse events and parents' impression of physiotherapy benefit. No pooling of data was possible.
We included 12 RCTs (1249 participants), three more than the previous Cochrane review, comparing physiotherapy with no intervention. Five trials (246 participants) evaluated conventional techniques (vibration and percussion plus postural drainage), and seven trials (1003 participants) evaluated passive flow-oriented expiratory techniques: slow passive expiratory techniques in four trials, and forced passive expiratory techniques in three trials.Conventional techniques failed to show a benefit in the primary outcome of change in severity status of bronchiolitis measured by means of clinical scores (five trials, 241 participants analysed). Safety of conventional techniques has been studied only anecdotally, with one case of atelectasis, the collapse or closure of the lung resulting in reduced or absent gas exchange, reported in the control arm of one trial.Slow passive expiratory techniques failed to show a benefit in the primary outcomes of severity status of bronchiolitis and in time to recovery (low quality of evidence). Three trials analysing 286 participants measured severity of bronchiolitis through clinical scores, with no significant differences between groups in any of these trials, conducted in patients with moderate and severe disease. Only one trial observed a transient significant small improvement in the Wang clinical score immediately after the intervention in patients with moderate severity of disease. There is very low quality evidence that slow passive expiratory techniques seem to be safe, as two studies (256 participants) reported that no adverse effects were observed.Forced passive expiratory techniques failed to show an effect on severity of bronchiolitis in terms of time to recovery (two trials, 509 participants) and time to clinical stability (one trial, 99 participants analysed). This evidence is of high quality and corresponds to patients with severe bronchiolitis. Furthermore, there is also high quality evidence that these techniques are related to an increased risk of transient respiratory destabilisation (risk ratio (RR) 10.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 78.8, one trial) and vomiting during the procedure (RR 5.4, 95% CI 1.6 to 18.4, one trial). Results are inconclusive for bradycardia with desaturation (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.0, one trial) and bradycardia without desaturation (RR 3.6, 95% CI 0.7 to 16.9, one trial), due to the limited precision of estimators. However, in mild to moderate bronchiolitis patients, forced expiration combined with conventional techniques produced an immediate relief of disease severity (one trial, 13 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: None of the chest physiotherapy techniques analysed in this review (conventional, slow passive expiratory techniques or forced expiratory techniques) have demonstrated a reduction in the severity of disease. For these reasons, these techniques cannot be used as standard clinical practice for hospitalised patients with severe bronchiolitis. There is high quality evidence that forced expiratory techniques in severe patients do not improve their health status and can lead to severe adverse events. Slow passive expiratory techniques provide an immediate and transient relief in moderate patients without impact on duration. Future studies should test the potential effect of slow passive expiratory techniques in mild to moderate non-hospitalised patients and patients who are respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) positive. Also, they could explore the combination of chest physiotherapy with salbutamol or hypertonic saline.
本Cochrane系统评价首次发表于2005年,并于2007年、2012年及现在的2015年进行了更新。急性细支气管炎是两岁以下儿童冬季医疗急症的主要原因。胸部物理治疗有时用于帮助婴儿清除分泌物,以减少通气负担。
确定胸部物理治疗对24个月以下急性细支气管炎婴儿的疗效。次要目的是确定不同胸部物理治疗技术(如振动、叩击和被动强制呼气)的疗效。
我们检索了Cochrane系统评价数据库(2015年第9期)(2015年7月8日获取)、MEDLINE(1966年至2015年7月)、MEDLINE在研及其他未索引文献(2015年7月)、EMBASE(1990年至2015年7月)、CINAHL(1982年至2015年7月)、LILACS(1985年至2015年7月)、科学引文索引(1985年至2015年7月)和Pedro(1929年至2015年7月)。
随机对照试验,比较胸部物理治疗与不干预或与其他类型物理治疗对24个月以下细支气管炎患者的效果。
两位系统评价作者独立提取数据。主要结局为细支气管炎严重程度状态的变化和恢复时间。次要结局为呼吸参数、吸氧持续时间、住院时间、支气管扩张剂和类固醇的使用、不良事件以及家长对物理治疗益处的印象。无法进行数据合并。
我们纳入了12项随机对照试验(1249名参与者),比之前的Cochrane系统评价多三项,比较了物理治疗与不干预的情况。五项试验(246名参与者)评估了传统技术(振动、叩击加体位引流),七项试验(1003名参与者)评估了被动呼气末定向技术:四项试验中的缓慢被动呼气技术,三项试验中的强制被动呼气技术。传统技术在通过临床评分衡量的细支气管炎严重程度状态变化这一主要结局中未显示出益处(五项试验,分析了241名参与者)。仅通过个案报道对传统技术的安全性进行了研究,一项试验的对照组报告了1例肺不张(肺萎陷或闭合,导致气体交换减少或缺失)。缓慢被动呼气技术在细支气管炎严重程度状态和恢复时间的主要结局中未显示出益处(证据质量低)。三项分析286名参与者的试验通过临床评分测量细支气管炎严重程度,在这些针对中重度疾病患者进行的试验中,各试验组之间均无显著差异。仅一项试验观察到中度疾病患者在干预后即刻,Wang临床评分有短暂的显著小幅改善。有非常低质量的证据表明缓慢被动呼气技术似乎是安全的,因为两项研究(共256名参与者)报告未观察到不良反应。强制被动呼气技术在恢复时间(两项试验,509名参与者)和临床稳定时间(一项试验,分析了99名参与者)方面对细支气管炎严重程度未显示出效果。该证据质量高,针对的是重度细支气管炎患者。此外,也有高质量证据表明这些技术与短暂呼吸失稳风险增加相关(风险比(RR)10.2,95%置信区间(CI)1.3至78.8,一项试验)以及操作过程中呕吐(RR 5.4,95%CI 1.6至18.4,一项试验)。对于伴有血氧饱和度降低的心动过缓(RR 1.0,95%CI 0.2至5.0,一项试验)和不伴有血氧饱和度降低的心动过缓(RR 3.6,95%CI 0.7至16.9,一项试验),由于估计值的精度有限,结果尚无定论。然而,在轻度至中度细支气管炎患者中,强制呼气联合传统技术可使疾病严重程度即刻缓解(一项试验,13名参与者)。
本系统评价分析的胸部物理治疗技术(传统技术、缓慢被动呼气技术或强制呼气技术)均未显示能降低疾病严重程度。因此,这些技术不能作为重度细支气管炎住院患者的标准临床治疗方法。有高质量证据表明重度患者使用强制呼气技术不能改善其健康状况,且可导致严重不良事件。缓慢被动呼气技术可使中度患者即刻得到短暂缓解,且不影响病程。未来研究应测试缓慢被动呼气技术对轻度至中度非住院患者及呼吸道合胞病毒(RSV)阳性患者的潜在效果。此外,还可探索胸部物理治疗与沙丁胺醇或高渗盐水联合使用的效果。