Cool facial airflow hastens exertion recovery in chronic breathlessness: randomised crossover trial of different fan airflow speeds.

IF 2 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Pub Date : 2025-06-13 DOI:10.1136/spcare-2024-005103

Thomas Burrell, Andrew Simpson, Christina Ramsenthaler, Michael G Crooks, Miriam J Johnson, Flavia Swan

{"title":"Cool facial airflow hastens exertion recovery in chronic breathlessness: randomised crossover trial of different fan airflow speeds.","authors":"Thomas Burrell, Andrew Simpson, Christina Ramsenthaler, Michael G Crooks, Miriam J Johnson, Flavia Swan","doi":"10.1136/spcare-2024-005103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Facial airflow from a hand-held fan (fan) hastens recovery from exertional breathlessness. We aimed to determine the effect of different airflow speeds on recovery from exertional breathlessness in patients with chronic breathlessness.Methods: A prospective, unblinded, randomised crossover trial. Participants with chronic breathlessness (modified Medical Research Council ≥3) completed five 1 min sit-to-stand (STS) tests to induce breathlessness. After each STS test, participants used a fan with one of four airflow speeds or control (no fan) during 10 min recovery. Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) breathlessness intensity, airflow pleasantness, heart rate, oxygen saturation and facial skin temperature were recorded.Results: 10 participants were recruited (n=1 withdrew due to health concerns) and 9 (mean±SD age 66±14 years; 5 men; 8 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 1 long covid) completed the trial. Per-protocol analysis identified no difference in NRS breathlessness recovery across fan speeds (p>0.05). Sensitivity analysis (n=1 excluded due to low exertional NRS breathlessness post STS test) identified a significant interaction effect for fan speed over time (p=0.010). Fan speed 2.85 m/s reduced NRS breathlessness compared with control at minutes 4-8 during recovery (p<0.05), whereas fan speeds 1.98 m/s, 3.70 m/s and 4.91 m/s only differed from control after 7 min recovery (p<0.05). The perceived most pleasant and preferred airflow rate was 2.85 m/s. NRS pleasantness decreased with faster airflow speeds, suggesting a ceiling limit to net benefit.Conclusion: Our novel data suggest the optimal airflow speed to hasten recovery from exertional breathlessness in people with chronic breathlessness is 2.85 m/s. Net benefit reduces at higher flow rates.","PeriodicalId":9136,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/spcare-2024-005103","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Facial airflow from a hand-held fan (fan) hastens recovery from exertional breathlessness. We aimed to determine the effect of different airflow speeds on recovery from exertional breathlessness in patients with chronic breathlessness.

Methods: A prospective, unblinded, randomised crossover trial. Participants with chronic breathlessness (modified Medical Research Council ≥3) completed five 1 min sit-to-stand (STS) tests to induce breathlessness. After each STS test, participants used a fan with one of four airflow speeds or control (no fan) during 10 min recovery. Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) breathlessness intensity, airflow pleasantness, heart rate, oxygen saturation and facial skin temperature were recorded.

Results: 10 participants were recruited (n=1 withdrew due to health concerns) and 9 (mean±SD age 66±14 years; 5 men; 8 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 1 long covid) completed the trial. Per-protocol analysis identified no difference in NRS breathlessness recovery across fan speeds (p>0.05). Sensitivity analysis (n=1 excluded due to low exertional NRS breathlessness post STS test) identified a significant interaction effect for fan speed over time (p=0.010). Fan speed 2.85 m/s reduced NRS breathlessness compared with control at minutes 4-8 during recovery (p<0.05), whereas fan speeds 1.98 m/s, 3.70 m/s and 4.91 m/s only differed from control after 7 min recovery (p<0.05). The perceived most pleasant and preferred airflow rate was 2.85 m/s. NRS pleasantness decreased with faster airflow speeds, suggesting a ceiling limit to net benefit.

Conclusion: Our novel data suggest the optimal airflow speed to hasten recovery from exertional breathlessness in people with chronic breathlessness is 2.85 m/s. Net benefit reduces at higher flow rates.

查看原文本刊更多论文

面部凉爽气流加速慢性呼吸困难的运动恢复：不同风扇气流速度的随机交叉试验。

目的：面部气流从手持风扇（风扇）加速恢复劳累呼吸困难。我们的目的是确定不同气流速度对慢性呼吸困难患者从运动性呼吸困难中恢复的影响。方法：前瞻性、非盲、随机交叉试验。慢性呼吸困难（修订医学研究委员会≥3）的参与者完成了5次1分钟的坐立（STS）试验来诱导呼吸困难。在每次STS测试后，参与者在10分钟的恢复期间使用四种气流速度或控制（无风扇）之一的风扇。记录呼吸强度、气流愉悦度、心率、血氧饱和度和面部皮肤温度。结果：招募了10名参与者（n=1名因健康原因退出）和9名(平均±SD年龄66±14岁；5人;慢性阻塞性肺疾病8例，长冠1例)完成试验。按方案分析发现，不同风扇转速的NRS呼吸困难恢复无差异（p < 0.05）。敏感性分析（排除了n=1，因为STS测试后的NRS呼吸困难程度较低）确定了风扇转速随时间的显著交互效应（p=0.010）。与对照组相比，2.85 m/s的风扇速度在恢复过程中的第4-8分钟减少了NRS呼吸困难(p)结论：我们的新数据表明，加速慢性呼吸困难患者从运动性呼吸困难中恢复的最佳气流速度为2.85 m/s。在较高的流量下，净效益降低。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

7.40%

发文量

170

期刊介绍： Published quarterly in print and continuously online, BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care aims to connect many disciplines and specialties throughout the world by providing high quality, clinically relevant research, reviews, comment, information and news of international importance. We hold an inclusive view of supportive and palliative care research and we are able to call on expertise to critique the whole range of methodologies within the subject, including those working in transitional research, clinical trials, epidemiology, behavioural sciences, ethics and health service research. Articles with relevance to clinical practice and clinical service development will be considered for publication. In an international context, many different categories of clinician and healthcare workers do clinical work associated with palliative medicine, specialist or generalist palliative care, supportive care, psychosocial-oncology and end of life care. We wish to engage many specialties, not only those traditionally associated with supportive and palliative care. We hope to extend the readership to doctors, nurses, other healthcare workers and researchers in medical and surgical specialties, including but not limited to cardiology, gastroenterology, geriatrics, neurology, oncology, paediatrics, primary care, psychiatry, psychology, renal medicine, respiratory medicine.