Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Feb 2;2(2):CD007862. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007862.pub5.
People with cystic fibrosis (CF) experience chronic airway infections as a result of mucus buildup within the lungs. Repeated infections often cause lung damage and disease. Airway clearance therapies aim to improve mucus clearance, increase sputum production, and improve airway function. The active cycle of breathing technique (ACBT) is an airway clearance method that uses a cycle of techniques to loosen airway secretions including breathing control, thoracic expansion exercises, and the forced expiration technique. This is an update of a previously published review.
To compare the clinical effectiveness of ACBT with other airway clearance therapies in CF.
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched clinical trials registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of last search: 29 March 2021.
We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical studies, including cross-over studies, comparing ACBT with other airway clearance therapies in CF.
Two review authors independently screened each article, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each study. We used GRADE to assess our confidence in the evidence assessing quality of life, participant preference, adverse events, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV) % predicted, forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted, sputum weight, and number of pulmonary exacerbations.
Our search identified 99 studies, of which 22 (559 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Eight randomised controlled studies (259 participants) were included in the analysis; five were of cross-over design. The 14 remaining studies were cross-over studies with inadequate reports for complete assessment. The study size ranged from seven to 65 participants. The age of the participants ranged from six to 63 years (mean age 18.7 years). In 13 studies follow up lasted a single day. However, there were two long-term randomised controlled studies with follow up of one to three years. Most of the studies did not report on key quality items, and therefore, have an unclear risk of bias in terms of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and outcome assessor blinding. Due to the nature of the intervention, none of the studies blinded participants or the personnel applying the interventions. However, most of the studies reported on all planned outcomes, had adequate follow up, assessed compliance, and used an intention-to-treat analysis. Included studies compared ACBT with autogenic drainage, airway oscillating devices (AOD), high-frequency chest compression devices, conventional chest physiotherapy (CCPT), positive expiratory pressure (PEP), and exercise. We found no difference in quality of life between ACBT and PEP mask therapy, AOD, other breathing techniques, or exercise (very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in individual preference between ACBT and other breathing techniques (very low-certainty evidence). One study comparing ACBT with ACBT plus postural exercise reported no deaths and no adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). We found no differences in lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV) % predicted and forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted), oxygen saturation or expectorated sputum between ACBT and any other technique (very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences in the number of pulmonary exacerbations between people using ACBT and people using CCPT (low-certainty evidence) or ACBT with exercise (very low-certainty evidence), the only comparisons to report this outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence to support or reject the use of the ACBT over any other airway clearance therapy and ACBT is comparable with other therapies in outcomes such as participant preference, quality of life, exercise tolerance, lung function, sputum weight, oxygen saturation, and number of pulmonary exacerbations. Longer-term studies are needed to more adequately assess the effects of ACBT on outcomes important for people with cystic fibrosis such as quality of life and preference.
囊性纤维化 (CF) 患者由于肺部积聚的黏液而经历慢性气道感染。反复感染常导致肺部损伤和疾病。气道清除疗法旨在改善黏液清除,增加痰量,并改善气道功能。主动循环呼吸技术 (ACBT) 是一种气道清除方法,它使用一系列技术来松动气道分泌物,包括呼吸控制、胸廓扩张运动和强制呼气技术。这是之前发布的一篇综述的更新。
比较 ACBT 与 CF 中其他气道清除疗法的临床效果。
我们检索了 Cochrane 囊性纤维化试验注册库,该数据库是通过电子数据库搜索以及期刊和会议摘要书籍的手工搜索编制而成。我们还检索了临床试验注册库以及相关文章和综述的参考文献列表。最后检索日期:2021 年 3 月 29 日。
我们纳入了比较 ACBT 与 CF 中其他气道清除疗法的随机或半随机对照临床试验,包括交叉研究。
两位综述作者独立筛选每篇文章,提取数据,并评估每项研究的偏倚风险。我们使用 GRADE 评估我们对生活质量、参与者偏好、不良事件、一秒用力呼气量占预计值的百分比 (FEV%)、用力肺活量占预计值的百分比 (FVC%)、痰量和肺部恶化次数的证据的信心。
我们的搜索共确定了 99 项研究,其中 22 项(559 名参与者)符合纳入标准。8 项随机对照试验(259 名参与者)纳入分析;其中 5 项为交叉设计。其余 14 项研究为交叉研究,但报告不完整,无法进行完整评估。研究规模从 7 名到 65 名参与者不等。参与者的年龄范围从 6 岁到 63 岁(平均年龄 18.7 岁)。在 13 项研究中,随访时间为 1 天。然而,有两项长期的随机对照研究随访时间为 1 至 3 年。大多数研究未报告关键质量项目,因此在随机序列生成、分配隐藏和结局评估者盲法方面存在不确定的偏倚风险。由于干预的性质,没有一项研究对参与者或实施干预的人员进行盲法。然而,大多数研究都报告了所有计划的结局,有足够的随访,评估了依从性,并使用了意向治疗分析。纳入的研究比较了 ACBT 与自主引流、气道震荡装置 (AOD)、高频胸壁压缩装置、常规胸部物理疗法 (CCPT)、正压呼气 (PEP) 和运动。我们发现 ACBT 与 PEP 面罩治疗、AOD、其他呼吸技术或运动在生活质量方面没有差异(极低确定性证据)。ACBT 与其他呼吸技术在个人偏好方面也没有差异(极低确定性证据)。一项比较 ACBT 与 ACBT 加姿势运动的研究报告没有死亡和不良事件(极低确定性证据)。我们发现 ACBT 与任何其他技术在肺功能(一秒用力呼气量占预计值的百分比 (FEV%) 和用力肺活量占预计值的百分比 (FVC%))、血氧饱和度或咳出的痰之间没有差异(极低确定性证据)。使用 ACBT 和 CCPT(低确定性证据)或 ACBT 加运动(极低确定性证据)的人之间肺部恶化次数没有差异,这是唯一报告该结局的比较。
几乎没有证据支持或否定 ACBT 优于任何其他气道清除疗法,并且 ACBT 在参与者偏好、生活质量、运动耐量、肺功能、痰量、血氧饱和度和肺部恶化次数等结局方面与其他疗法相当。需要进行更长时间的研究,以更充分地评估 ACBT 对囊性纤维化患者重要结局(如生活质量和偏好)的影响。