Bauer M L, McDougal J, Schoumacher R A
Pediatric Pulmonary Section, University of Alabama at Birmingham.
J Pediatr. 1994 Feb;124(2):250-4. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(94)70313-2.
We compared the efficacy of manual and mechanical chest percussion during hospitalization for acute exacerbations of cystic fibrosis by evaluating changes in spirometry values. Fifty-one participants were randomly assigned to receive manual or mechanical chest percussion three times a day. Twenty-two participated during one subsequent admission and were assigned to the opposite form of chest percussion. The two groups were equal in severity of illness (mean National Institutes of Health score (+/- SEM): manual = 66.7 +/- 2.2; mechanical = 35.8 +/- 2.2; p = not significant). Mean improvement in forced expiratory volume at 1 second, forced vital capacity, and forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of forced vital capacity (+/- SEM) for manual percussion was 32.6% +/- 7%, 27.2% +/- 5%, and 38.1% +/- 10%, and for mechanical percussion was 28.5% +/- 4%, 28.7% +/- 4%, and 25.1% +/- 8%, respectively; p = not significant. Our participants did not prefer mechanical chest percussion. Although equal efficacy of outpatient therapy remains to be proved, this study suggests that patients can be encouraged to use the form of chest percussion that they prefer.
我们通过评估肺量计值的变化,比较了在囊性纤维化急性加重期住院期间手动胸部叩击和机械胸部叩击的疗效。51名参与者被随机分配,每天接受三次手动或机械胸部叩击。22名参与者在随后的一次住院期间参与,并被分配到相反形式的胸部叩击。两组疾病严重程度相同(美国国立卫生研究院平均评分(+/-标准误):手动 = 66.7 +/- 2.2;机械 = 35.8 +/- 2.2;p = 无显著性差异)。手动叩击时,第1秒用力呼气量、用力肺活量以及用力肺活量25%至75%之间的用力呼气流量(+/-标准误)的平均改善分别为32.6% +/- 7%、27.2% +/- 5%和38.1% +/- 10%,机械叩击时分别为28.5% +/- 4%、28.7% +/- 4%和25.1% +/- 8%;p = 无显著性差异。我们的参与者不偏好机械胸部叩击。虽然门诊治疗的同等疗效仍有待证实,但本研究表明,可以鼓励患者使用他们偏好的胸部叩击形式。