Morrison Lisa, Innes Stephanie
West of Scotland Adult CF Unit, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (The Southern General Hospital), 1345 Govan Road, Glasgow, UK, G51 4TF.
Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, 1345 Govan Road, Glasgow, UK, G51 4TF.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 May 4;5(5):CD006842. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006842.pub4.
Chest physiotherapy is widely prescribed to assist the clearance of airway secretions in people with cystic fibrosis. Oscillating devices generate intra- or extra-thoracic oscillations orally or external to the chest wall. Internally they create variable resistances within the airways, generating controlled oscillating positive pressure which mobilises mucus. Extra-thoracic oscillations are generated by forces outside the respiratory system, e.g. high frequency chest wall oscillation. This is an update of a previously published review.
To identify whether oscillatory devices, oral or chest wall, are effective for mucociliary clearance and whether they are equivalent or superior to other forms of airway clearance in the successful management of secretions in people with cystic fibrosis.
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and hand searches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Latest search of the Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 27 April 2017.In addition we searched the trials databases ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Latest search of trials databases: 26 April 2017.
Randomised controlled studies and controlled clinical studies of oscillating devices compared with any other form of physiotherapy in people with cystic fibrosis. Single-treatment interventions (therapy technique used only once in the comparison) were excluded.
Two authors independently applied the inclusion criteria to publications and assessed the quality of the included studies.
The searches identified 76 studies (302 references); 35 studies (total of 1138 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Studies varied in duration from up to one week to one year; 20 of the studies were cross-over in design. The studies also varied in type of intervention and the outcomes measured, data were not published in sufficient detail in most of these studies, so meta-analysis was limited. Few studies were considered to have a low risk of bias in any domain. It is not possible to blind participants and clinicians to physiotherapy interventions, but 11 studies did blind the outcome assessors.Forced expiratory volume in one second was the most frequently measured outcome. One long-term study (seven months) compared oscillatory devices with either conventional physiotherapy or breathing techniques and found statistically significant differences in some lung function parameters in favour of oscillating devices. One study identified an increase in frequency of exacerbations requiring antibiotics whilst using high frequency chest wall oscillation when compared to positive expiratory pressure. There were some small but significant changes in secondary outcome variables such as sputum volume or weight, but not wholly in favour of oscillating devices. Participant satisfaction was reported in 15 studies but this was not specifically in favour of an oscillating device, as some participants preferred breathing techniques or techniques used prior to the study interventions. The results for the remaining outcome measures were not examined or reported in sufficient detail to provide any high level evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no clear evidence that oscillation was a more or less effective intervention overall than other forms of physiotherapy; furthermore there was no evidence that one device is superior to another. The findings from one study showing an increase in frequency of exacerbations requiring antibiotics whilst using an oscillating device compared to positive expiratory pressure may have significant resource implications. More adequately-powered long-term randomised controlled trials are necessary and outcomes measured should include frequency of exacerbations, individual preference, adherence to therapy and general satisfaction with treatment. Increased adherence to therapy may then lead to improvements in other parameters, such as exercise tolerance and respiratory function. Additional evidence is needed to evaluate whether oscillating devices combined with other forms of airway clearance is efficacious in people with cystic fibrosis.There may also be a requirement to consider the cost implication of devices over other forms of equally advantageous airway clearance techniques. Using the GRADE method to assess the quality of the evidence, we judged this to be low or very low quality, which suggests that further research is very likely to have an impact on confidence in any estimate of effect generated by future interventions.
胸部物理治疗被广泛应用于协助囊性纤维化患者清除气道分泌物。振荡装置通过口腔或胸壁外部产生胸内或胸外振荡。在气道内部,它们会产生可变阻力,从而产生可控的振荡正压,促使黏液移动。胸外振荡由呼吸系统外部的力量产生,例如高频胸壁振荡。这是对先前发表的综述的更新。
确定口腔或胸壁振荡装置对于黏液纤毛清除是否有效,以及在成功管理囊性纤维化患者的分泌物方面,它们是否等同于或优于其他形式的气道清除方法。
我们检索了Cochrane囊性纤维化和遗传疾病小组试验注册库,其中包括通过全面电子数据库检索以及对相关期刊和会议论文摘要集进行手工检索所识别的参考文献。对囊性纤维化试验注册库的最新检索日期为2017年4月27日。此外,我们还检索了试验数据库ClinicalTrials.gov和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台。对试验数据库的最新检索日期为2017年4月26日。
将振荡装置与其他任何形式的物理治疗进行比较的随机对照研究和对照临床研究,研究对象为囊性纤维化患者。排除单治疗干预(在比较中仅使用一次的治疗技术)。
两位作者独立将纳入标准应用于出版物,并评估纳入研究的质量。
检索共识别出76项研究(302篇参考文献);35项研究(共1138名参与者)符合纳入标准。研究持续时间从长达一周到一年不等;其中20项研究为交叉设计。研究在干预类型和测量结果方面也存在差异,大多数研究未详细公布数据,因此荟萃分析受到限制。很少有研究在任何领域被认为存在低偏倚风险。不可能让参与者和临床医生对物理治疗干预不知情,但有11项研究对结果评估者进行了盲法处理。一秒用力呼气量是最常测量的结果。一项长期研究(七个月)将振荡装置与传统物理治疗或呼吸技术进行了比较,发现某些肺功能参数存在统计学上的显著差异,振荡装置更具优势。一项研究发现,与呼气正压相比,使用高频胸壁振荡时需要使用抗生素的加重发作频率有所增加。在次要结果变量如痰量或重量方面有一些小但显著的变化,但并非完全有利于振荡装置。15项研究报告了参与者的满意度,但这并非特别有利于振荡装置,因为一些参与者更喜欢呼吸技术或研究干预之前使用的技术。其余结果测量的结果未得到充分审查或报告,无法提供任何高级别证据。
没有明确证据表明振荡作为一种干预措施总体上比其他形式的物理治疗更有效或更无效;此外,也没有证据表明一种装置优于另一种装置。一项研究的结果显示,与呼气正压相比,使用振荡装置时需要使用抗生素的加重发作频率增加,这可能对资源有重大影响。有必要进行更多样本量充足的长期随机对照试验,测量的结果应包括加重发作频率、个人偏好、治疗依从性和对治疗的总体满意度。提高治疗依从性可能会改善其他参数,如运动耐量和呼吸功能。需要更多证据来评估振荡装置与其他形式的气道清除方法联合使用对囊性纤维化患者是否有效。还可能需要考虑装置相对于其他同样有利的气道清除技术的成本影响。使用GRADE方法评估证据质量,我们判断其为低质量或极低质量,这表明进一步的研究很可能会对未来干预所产生的任何效应估计的可信度产生影响。