Thomas Burrell, Andrew Simpson, Christina Ramsenthaler, Michael G Crooks, Miriam J Johnson, Flavia Swan
{"title":"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。","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":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","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":"{\"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\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"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}","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}
Cool facial airflow hastens exertion recovery in chronic breathlessness: randomised crossover trial of different fan airflow speeds.
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.
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.