非通气重症患者肺内冲击通气对住院时间、氧合作用和肺部并发症的影响:随机对照试验

Anwar Hassan MHSc , Stephen Huang PhD , Fiona Fitzsimons BASc , Deepa Shetty MBBS , Richard Evans MBBS , Jennifer A Alison PhD , Maree A Milross PhD
{"title":"非通气重症患者肺内冲击通气对住院时间、氧合作用和肺部并发症的影响:随机对照试验","authors":"Anwar Hassan MHSc ,&nbsp;Stephen Huang PhD ,&nbsp;Fiona Fitzsimons BASc ,&nbsp;Deepa Shetty MBBS ,&nbsp;Richard Evans MBBS ,&nbsp;Jennifer A Alison PhD ,&nbsp;Maree A Milross PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.chstcc.2024.100068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Pulmonary complications such as chest infection and pulmonary atelectasis may lead to respiratory failure, prolonged ICU stay, and poor outcomes. Routine application of respiratory physiotherapy interventions is not supported by the current body of evidence. Intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (IPV) is used to treat various clinical conditions; however, the evidence to support its effectiveness in the ICU remains weak. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of IPV in improving outcomes in patients admitted to intensive care.</p></div><div><h3>Research Question</h3><p>What is the effect of IPV on ICU length of stay, oxygenation, and pulmonary complications in nonventilated patients who are critically ill compared with commonly applied chest physiotherapy (CPT)?</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a randomized controlled trial. Of 201 patients screened, 106 were recruited. Participants with a respiratory impairment were randomly allocated to either the IPV or the CPT group. Both groups received two treatment sessions daily. Data were analyzed for 100 participants for ICU length of stay, changes in oxygenation, respiratory rate, and radiologic findings.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The median length of stay in the IPV group was 3.5 days (1.9, 5.9); in the CPT group, the length of stay was 5.2 days (3.4, 9.9). The mean difference in length of stay was 1.56 days (95% CI, 1.2-2.1; <em>P</em> = .002). The between-group difference (IPV minus CPT) for preintervention to postintervention peripheral oxygen saturation was 0.94% (95% CI, 0.43-1.45; <em>P</em> &lt; .001). The between-group difference (IPV minus CPT) in respiratory rate was 2.1 breaths/minute (95% CI, 0.9-3.2; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). No significant difference in radiologic atelectasis score was observed (<em>P</em> = .65).</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><p>This study showed that the IPV intervention reduced ICU length of stay and respiratory rate, with a small improvement in oxygenation compared with CPT interventions in nonventilated patients. The use of IPV intervention may improve outcomes in patients who are critically ill with impaired respiratory function.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93934,"journal":{"name":"CHEST critical care","volume":"2 2","pages":"Article 100068"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949788424000224/pdfft?md5=2999a6d219939625b8190a2dd3362a1a&pid=1-s2.0-S2949788424000224-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of Intrapulmonary Percussive Ventilation in Nonventilated Patients Who Are Critically Ill on Length of Stay, Oxygenation, and Pulmonary Complications\",\"authors\":\"Anwar Hassan MHSc ,&nbsp;Stephen Huang PhD ,&nbsp;Fiona Fitzsimons BASc ,&nbsp;Deepa Shetty MBBS ,&nbsp;Richard Evans MBBS ,&nbsp;Jennifer A Alison PhD ,&nbsp;Maree A Milross PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chstcc.2024.100068\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Pulmonary complications such as chest infection and pulmonary atelectasis may lead to respiratory failure, prolonged ICU stay, and poor outcomes. Routine application of respiratory physiotherapy interventions is not supported by the current body of evidence. Intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (IPV) is used to treat various clinical conditions; however, the evidence to support its effectiveness in the ICU remains weak. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of IPV in improving outcomes in patients admitted to intensive care.</p></div><div><h3>Research Question</h3><p>What is the effect of IPV on ICU length of stay, oxygenation, and pulmonary complications in nonventilated patients who are critically ill compared with commonly applied chest physiotherapy (CPT)?</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a randomized controlled trial. Of 201 patients screened, 106 were recruited. Participants with a respiratory impairment were randomly allocated to either the IPV or the CPT group. Both groups received two treatment sessions daily. Data were analyzed for 100 participants for ICU length of stay, changes in oxygenation, respiratory rate, and radiologic findings.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The median length of stay in the IPV group was 3.5 days (1.9, 5.9); in the CPT group, the length of stay was 5.2 days (3.4, 9.9). The mean difference in length of stay was 1.56 days (95% CI, 1.2-2.1; <em>P</em> = .002). The between-group difference (IPV minus CPT) for preintervention to postintervention peripheral oxygen saturation was 0.94% (95% CI, 0.43-1.45; <em>P</em> &lt; .001). The between-group difference (IPV minus CPT) in respiratory rate was 2.1 breaths/minute (95% CI, 0.9-3.2; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). No significant difference in radiologic atelectasis score was observed (<em>P</em> = .65).</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><p>This study showed that the IPV intervention reduced ICU length of stay and respiratory rate, with a small improvement in oxygenation compared with CPT interventions in nonventilated patients. The use of IPV intervention may improve outcomes in patients who are critically ill with impaired respiratory function.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CHEST critical care\",\"volume\":\"2 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 100068\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949788424000224/pdfft?md5=2999a6d219939625b8190a2dd3362a1a&pid=1-s2.0-S2949788424000224-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CHEST critical care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949788424000224\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CHEST critical care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949788424000224","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景胸部感染和肺不张等肺部并发症可能导致呼吸衰竭、重症监护室住院时间延长和不良预后。目前的证据并不支持常规应用呼吸理疗干预。肺内冲击通气(IPV)可用于治疗各种临床病症,但其在重症监护病房的有效性证据仍然薄弱。本研究旨在评估 IPV 在改善重症监护患者预后方面的效果。研究问题与常用的胸部物理治疗(CPT)相比,IPV 对重症监护病房的住院时间、氧合作用和非通气重症患者的肺部并发症有何影响?在筛选出的 201 名患者中,有 106 人被招募。有呼吸障碍的参与者被随机分配到 IPV 组或 CPT 组。两组患者每天均接受两次治疗。结果 IPV 组的中位住院时间为 3.5 天(1.9,5.9);CPT 组的中位住院时间为 5.2 天(3.4,9.9)。住院时间的平均差异为 1.56 天(95% CI,1.2-2.1;P = .002)。干预前与干预后外周血氧饱和度的组间差异(IPV 减 CPT)为 0.94% (95% CI, 0.43-1.45; P < .001)。组间呼吸频率差异(IPV 减 CPT)为 2.1 次/分钟(95% CI,0.9-3.2;P <;0.001)。这项研究表明,与 CPT 干预相比,IPV 干预缩短了非通气患者的重症监护室住院时间,降低了呼吸频率,并小幅改善了氧合状况。对于呼吸功能受损的重症患者,使用 IPV 干预可改善预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of Intrapulmonary Percussive Ventilation in Nonventilated Patients Who Are Critically Ill on Length of Stay, Oxygenation, and Pulmonary Complications

Background

Pulmonary complications such as chest infection and pulmonary atelectasis may lead to respiratory failure, prolonged ICU stay, and poor outcomes. Routine application of respiratory physiotherapy interventions is not supported by the current body of evidence. Intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (IPV) is used to treat various clinical conditions; however, the evidence to support its effectiveness in the ICU remains weak. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of IPV in improving outcomes in patients admitted to intensive care.

Research Question

What is the effect of IPV on ICU length of stay, oxygenation, and pulmonary complications in nonventilated patients who are critically ill compared with commonly applied chest physiotherapy (CPT)?

Methods

This was a randomized controlled trial. Of 201 patients screened, 106 were recruited. Participants with a respiratory impairment were randomly allocated to either the IPV or the CPT group. Both groups received two treatment sessions daily. Data were analyzed for 100 participants for ICU length of stay, changes in oxygenation, respiratory rate, and radiologic findings.

Results

The median length of stay in the IPV group was 3.5 days (1.9, 5.9); in the CPT group, the length of stay was 5.2 days (3.4, 9.9). The mean difference in length of stay was 1.56 days (95% CI, 1.2-2.1; P = .002). The between-group difference (IPV minus CPT) for preintervention to postintervention peripheral oxygen saturation was 0.94% (95% CI, 0.43-1.45; P < .001). The between-group difference (IPV minus CPT) in respiratory rate was 2.1 breaths/minute (95% CI, 0.9-3.2; P < 0.001). No significant difference in radiologic atelectasis score was observed (P = .65).

Interpretation

This study showed that the IPV intervention reduced ICU length of stay and respiratory rate, with a small improvement in oxygenation compared with CPT interventions in nonventilated patients. The use of IPV intervention may improve outcomes in patients who are critically ill with impaired respiratory function.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CHEST critical care
CHEST critical care Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信