Chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in children

[Guidelines for the Management of Community Acquired Pneumonia in Children and Adolescents (Pediatric Community Acquired Pneumonia, pCAP) - Issued under the Responsibility of the German Society for Pediatric Infectious Diseases (DGPI) and the German Society for Pediatric Pulmonology (GPP)]

The present guideline aims to improve the evidence-based management of children and adolescents with pediatric community-acquired pneumonia (pCAP). Despite a prevalence of approx. 300 cases per 100 000 children per year in Central Europe, mortality is very low. Prevention includes infection control measures and comprehensive immunization. The diagnosis can and should be established clinically by history, physical examination and pulse oximetry, with fever and tachypnea as cardinal features. Additional signs or symptoms such as severely compromised general condition, poor feeding, dehydration, altered consciousness or seizures discriminate subjects with severe pCAP from those with non-severe pCAP. Within an age-dependent spectrum of infectious agents, bacterial etiology cannot be reliably differentiated from viral or mixed infections by currently available biomarkers. Most children and adolescents with non-severe pCAP and oxygen saturation > 92 % can be managed as outpatients without laboratory/microbiology workup or imaging. Anti-infective agents are not generally indicated and can be safely withheld especially in children of young age, with wheeze or other indices suggesting a viral origin. For calculated antibiotic therapy, aminopenicillins are the preferred drug class with comparable efficacy of oral (amoxicillin) and intravenous administration (ampicillin). Follow-up evaluation after 48 - 72 hours is mandatory for the assessment of clinical course, treatment success and potential complications such as parapneumonic pleural effusion or empyema, which may necessitate alternative or add-on therapy.

Use of airway clearance therapy in children hospitalised with acute lower respiratory tract infections in a South African paediatric hospital

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the prescription, frequency and nature of airway clearance therapy (ACT) in children hospitalised with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs).

OBJECTIVES

To describe the characteristics and outcomes of children hospitalised with LRTIs at a tertiary paediatric hospital in South Africa and to investigate the role and impact of ACT in these children.

METHOD

A retrospective folder review of children hospitalised with LRTI between January and June 2015 was conducted, extracting data on demographic characteristics, health condition, ACT interventions and patient outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1208 individual cases (median [IQR] age 7.6 (2.8-19.0) months), in 1440 hospitalisations, were included. The majority of children were hospitalised primarily for the management of bronchiolitis. Comorbidities were present in 52.6% of patients during at least one of their hospitalisations. Airway clearance therapy was administered in 5.9% (n = 85) of admissions, most commonly conventional (manual) ACT. Transient oxyhaemoglobin desaturation was reported in six children, and one child developed lobar collapse an hour post-treatment. No other adverse events were reported. The median (IQR) duration of hospitalisation was 2.3 (1.5-5.0) days, and the overall mortality rate was 0.7%. Children hospitalised for presumed nosocomial infections and pneumonia had the longest length of stay, were more likely to receive ACT and had the highest mortality rate.

CONCLUSION

Airway clearance therapy was infrequently used in this population and was more commonly applied in those with nosocomial LRTI and pneumonia.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Although ACT was generally well tolerated, safety has not been ascertained, and oxygen saturation should be carefully monitored during therapy.

Airway clearance therapy in acute paediatric respiratory illness: A state-of-the-art review

Background

Despite unclear evidence of effectiveness or safety, airway clearance therapy (ACT) is frequently performed in infants and children with acute pulmonary disease.

Objectives

The aim of this review was to critically synthesise published evidence, expert opinion and pathophysiological principles to describe the indications, effects, precautions and application of commonly used ACT modalities for managing infants and children with acute pulmonary disease.

Method

A comprehensive narrative review of published literature was conducted. Articles describing paediatric populations were prioritised, but adult and animal studies were also considered where appropriate.

Results

There is a dearth of high-level evidence supporting the use of ACT in acutely ill infants and children. Conversely, studies have highlighted the lack of effect of different modalities for a variety of conditions, and in some cases serious associated complications have been reported.Airway clearance therapy may be considered when there is retention of pulmonary secretions, and the consequential airway obstruction impacts either acutely on respiratory mechanics and gaseous exchange and/or has the potential for long-term adverse sequelae [a condition that is the consequence of a previous disease or injury]. However, it should not be considered a routine intervention.

Conclusion

Airway clearance therapy should not be performed routinely in children admitted to hospital with acute respiratory conditions. Patients should be clinically assessed and treatment planned according to individual presentation, in those with signs and symptoms that are potentially amenable to ACT.

Clinical implications

This review can serve as a guide for physiotherapists in the respiratory management of children with acute respiratory illness, as well as identifying areas for clinical research.

Chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in children

BACKGROUND

Pneumonia is a lung infection that causes more deaths in children aged under five years than any other single cause. Chest physiotherapy is widely used as adjuvant treatment for pneumonia. Physiotherapy is thought to help remove inflammatory exudates, tracheobronchial secretions, and airway obstructions, and reduce airway resistance to improve breathing and enhance gas exchange. This is an update of a review published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of chest physiotherapy with regard to time until clinical resolution in children (from birth to 18 years) of either gender with any type of pneumonia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (22 February 2018), Embase (22 February 2018), CINAHL (22 February 2018), LILACS (22 February 2018), Web of Science (22 February 2018), and PEDro (22 February 2018). We also searched clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) to identify planned, ongoing, and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type of chest physiotherapy with no chest physiotherapy for children with pneumonia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes of interest were mortality, duration of hospital stay, and time to clinical resolution. We used Review Manager 5 software to analyse data and GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three new RCTs for this update, for a total of six included RCTs involving 559 children aged from 29 days to 12 years with pneumonia who were treated as inpatients. Pneumonia severity was described as moderate in one trial, severe in two trials, and was not stated in three trials. The studies assessed five different interventions: effects of conventional chest physiotherapy (3 studies, 211 children), positive expiratory pressure (1 study, 72 children), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) (1 study, 94 children), bubble CPAP (bCPAP) (1 study, 225 children), and assisted autogenic drainage (1 studies, 29 children). The included studies were conducted in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Egypt, and South Africa. The studies were overall at low risk of bias. Blinding of participants was not possible in most studies, but we considered that the outcomes were unlikely to be influenced by the lack of blinding.All included studies evaluated mortality. However, three studies assessed mortality as an outcome, and only one study of bCPAP reported that deaths occurred. Three deaths occurred in children in the physiotherapy group (N = 79) and 20 deaths in children in the control group (N = 146) (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.90; 559 children; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether chest physiotherapy techniques (bCPAP, assisted autogenic drainage, and conventional chest physiotherapy) reduced hospital stay duration (days) (mean difference (MD) 0.10, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.76; 4 studies; low-quality evidence).There was variation among clinical parameters used to define clinical resolution. Two small studies found no difference in resolution of fever between children in the physiotherapy (conventional chest physiotherapy and assisted autogenic drainage) and control groups. Of five studies that considered peripheral oxygen saturation levels, only two reported that use of chest physiotherapy (CPAP and conventional chest physiotherapy) showed a greater improvement in peripheral oxygen saturation levels. However, it was unclear whether respiratory rate (breaths/min) improved after conventional chest physiotherapy (MD -2.25, 95% CI -5.17 to 0.68; 2 studies, 122 children; low-quality evidence). Two studies assessed adverse events (number of events), but only one study reported any events (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.67; 2 studies, 254 children; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We could draw no reliable conclusions concerning the use of chest physiotherapy for children with pneumonia due to the small number of included trials with differing study characteristics and statistical presentation of data. Future studies should consider the following key points: appropriate sample size with adequate power to detect expected differences, standardisation of chest physiotherapy techniques, appropriate outcomes (such as duration of leukocytosis, and airway clearance), and adverse effects.

Standard (head-down tilt) versus modified (without head-down tilt) postural drainage in infants and young children with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Postural drainage is used primarily in infants with cystic fibrosis from diagnosis up to the moment when they are mature enough to actively participate in self-administered treatments. However, there is a risk of gastroesophageal reflux associated with this technique.This is an update of a review published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of standard postural drainage (15º to 45º head-down tilt) with modified postural drainage (15º to 30º head-up tilt) with regard to gastroesophageal reflux in infants and young children up to six years old with cystic fibrosis in terms of safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Additional searches were conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov and on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for any planned, ongoing and unpublished studies.The date of the most recent literature searches: 19 June 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled studies that compared two postural drainage regimens (standard and modified postural drainage) with regard to gastroesophageal reflux in infants and young children (up to and including six years old) with cystic fibrosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently identified studies for inclusion, extracted outcome data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by involving a third review author. We contacted study authors to obtain missing or additional information. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies, involving a total of 40 participants, were eligible for inclusion in the review. We included no new studies in the 2018 update. The included studies were different in terms of the age of participants, the angle of tilt, the reported outcomes, the number of sessions and the study duration. The following outcomes were measured: appearance or exacerbation of gastroesophageal reflux episodes; percentage of peripheral oxygen saturation; number of exacerbations of upper respiratory tract symptoms; number of days on antibiotics for acute exacerbations; chest X-ray scores; and pulmonary function tests. One study reported that postural drainage with a 20° head-down position did not appear to exacerbate gastroesophageal reflux. However, the majority of the reflux episodes in this study reached the upper oesophagus (moderate-quality evidence). The second included study reported that modified postural drainage (30° head-up tilt) was associated with fewer number of gastroesophageal reflux episodes and fewer respiratory complications than standard postural drainage (30° head-down tilt) (moderate-quality evidence). The included studies had an overall low risk of bias. One included study was funded by the Sydney Children's Hospital Foundation and the other by the Royal Children's Hospital Research Foundation and Physiotherapy Research Foundation of Australia. Data were not able to be pooled by meta-analysis due to differences in the statistical presentation of the data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence regarding the comparison between the two regimens of postural drainage is still weak due to the small number of included studies, the small number of participants assessed, the inability to perform any meta-analyses and some methodological issues with the studies. However, it may be inferred that the use of a postural regimen with a 30° head-up tilt is associated with a lower number of gastroesophageal reflux episodes and fewer respiratory complications in the long term. The 20° head-down postural drainage position was not found to be significantly different from the 20° head-up tilt modified position. Nevertheless, the fact that the majority of reflux episodes reached the upper oesophagus should make physiotherapists carefully consider their treatment strategy. We do not envisage that there will be any new trials undertaken that will affect the conclusions of this review; therefore, we do not plan to update this review.

Chest physiotherapy in children with acute bacterial pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Pneumonia is the single leading cause of death in children younger than 5 years of age. Chest physiotherapy is often prescribed as an additional therapy in children with pneumonia. Different chest physiotherapy techniques are available that aim to improve airway clearance, gas exchange and reduce the work of breathing. However, it is unclear if these techniques are effective in this population.

OBJECTIVE

The present review aimed to determine the efficacy of different chest physiotherapy techniques compared with no physiotherapy or other chest physiotherapy treatments in hospitalised children with bacterial pneumonia.

METHOD

Six electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, PEDro, CINAHL and Africa-wide information), clinicaltrials.gov and pactr.org were searched for eligible studies.

RESULTS

Two randomised controlled trials and one ongoing study were identified. Neither completed trial reported differences between the control and intervention groups, although one study reported a longer duration of coughing (p = 0.04) and rhonchi (p = 0.03) in the intervention group.

CONCLUSION

Because of the limited number of included articles and different presentations of outcome measures, we could not reject or accept chest physiotherapy as either an effective or harmful treatment option in this population.

Standard (head-down tilt) versus modified (without head-down tilt) postural drainage in infants and young children with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Postural drainage is used primarily in infants with cystic fibrosis from diagnosis up to the moment when they are mature enough to actively participate in self-administered treatments. However, there is a risk of gastroesophageal reflux associated with this technique.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of standard postural drainage (greater (30° to 45° head-down tilt) and lesser (15° to 20° head-down tilt)) with modified postural drainage (greater (30º head-up tilt) or lesser (15º to 20º head-up tilt)) with regard to gastroesophageal reflux in infants and young children up to six years old with cystic fibrosis in terms of safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Additional searches were conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov and on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for any planned, ongoing and unpublished studies.The date of the most recent literature searches: 20 January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled studies that compared two postural drainage regimens (standard and modified postural drainage) with regard to gastroesophageal reflux in infants and young children (up to and including six years old) with cystic fibrosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies to be included in the review, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies, including 40 participants, were eligible for inclusion in the review. The studies were different in terms of the age of participants, the angle of tilt, the reported outcomes, the number of sessions and the study duration. The following outcomes were measured: appearance or exacerbation of gastroesophageal reflux episodes; percentage of peripheral oxygen saturation; number of exacerbations of upper respiratory tract symptoms; number of days on antibiotics for acute exacerbations; chest X-ray scores; and pulmonary function tests. One study reported that postural drainage with a 20° head-down position did not appear to exacerbate gastroesophageal reflux. However, the majority of the reflux episodes reached the upper oesophagus. The second included study reported that modified postural drainage (30º head-up tilt) was associated with fewer number of gastroesophageal reflux episodes and fewer respiratory complications than standard postural drainage (30º head-down tilt). The included studies had an overall low risk of bias. Data were not able to be pooled by meta-analysis due to differences in the statistical presentation of the data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence regarding the comparison between the two regimens of postural drainage is still weak due to the small number of included studies, the small number of participants assessed, the inability to perform any meta-analyses and some methodological issues with the studies. However, it may be inferred that the use of a postural regimen with a 30° head-up tilt is associated with a lower number of gastroesophageal reflux episodes and fewer respiratory complications in the long term. The 20º head-down postural drainage position was not found to be significantly different from the 20º head-up tilt modified position. Nevertheless, the fact that the majority of reflux episodes reached the upper oesophagus should make physiotherapists carefully consider their treatment strategy.