Effectiveness of temporary positive expiratory pressure (T-PEP) at home and at hospital in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Application of T-PEP in the Therapeutic Management of COPD Patients

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, characterized by chronic mucus hypersecretion (CMH) that exacerbates airway obstruction and accelerates disease progression. Effective airway clearance techniques are essential to improve respiratory function and reduce exacerbations. Temporary Positive Expiratory Pressure (T-PEP) is a novel airway clearance device that has shown promise in managing COPD. Objectives: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of T-PEP in a standard pulmonary rehabilitation program. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in the MEDLINE and PEDro databases. Data from 162 subjects, including those with severe COPD and bronchiectasis, were analyzed. Key outcomes assessed were changes in lung function (FVC, FEV1, TLC), inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP, MEP), gas exchange (PaO2, PaCO2), exercise capacity (6MWT), symptom severity (mMRC, CAT, BCSS), and exacerbation rates. Results: T-PEP significantly improved FVC, FEV1, TLC, MIP, MEP, and DLCO compared to baseline, with heterogeneity noted across studies. Improvements in gas exchange and physical capacity were observed, with PaO2 increasing and PaCO2 decreasing. T-PEP also reduced symptoms of cough and dyspnea, improving quality-of-life scores. Additionally, a notable reduction in acute exacerbations of COPD was seen after one month and three months of treatment. Conclusions: T-PEP therapy shows substantial benefits in improving lung function, exercise capacity, and quality of life while reducing exacerbation rates in COPD patients. Although promising, these findings require further confirmation through randomized clinical trials to establish the optimal application of T-PEP in various clinical settings and patient phenotypes.

Admission avoidance hospital at home

BACKGROUND

Admission avoidance hospital at home provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that would otherwise require acute hospital inpatient care, and always for a limited time period. This is the fourth update of this review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with admission avoidance hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 24 February 2022, and checked the reference lists of eligible articles. We sought ongoing and unpublished studies by searching ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, and by contacting providers and researchers involved in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials recruiting participants aged 18 years and over. Studies comparing admission avoidance hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We performed meta-analysis for trials that compared similar interventions, reported comparable outcomes with sufficient data, and used individual patient data when available. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 randomised controlled trials with a total of 3100 participants; four trials recruited participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; two trials recruited participants recovering from a stroke; seven trials recruited participants with an acute medical condition who were mainly older; and the remaining trials recruited participants with a mix of conditions. We assessed the majority of the included studies as at low risk of selection, detection, and attrition bias, and unclear for selective reporting and performance bias. For an older population, admission avoidance hospital at home probably makes little or no difference on mortality at six months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.13; P = 0.30; I2 = 0%; 5 trials, 1502 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); little or no difference on the likelihood of being readmitted to hospital after discharge from hospital at home or inpatient care within 3 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; P = 0.11; I2 = 41%; 8 trials, 1757 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and probably reduces the likelihood of living in residential care at six months' follow-up (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.69; P < 0.001; I2 = 67%; 4 trials, 1271 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Hospital at home probably results in little to no difference in patient's self-reported health status (2006 patients; moderate-certainty evidence). Satisfaction with health care received may be improved with admission avoidance hospital at home (1812 participants; low-certainty evidence); few studies reported the effect on caregivers. Hospital at home reduced the initial average hospital length of stay (2036 participants; low-certainty evidence), which ranged from 4.1 to 18.5 days in the hospital group and 1.2 to 5.1 days in the hospital at home group. Hospital at home length of stay ranged from an average of 3 to 20.7 days (hospital at home group only). Admission avoidance hospital at home probably reduces costs to the health service compared with hospital admission (2148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), though by a range of different amounts and using different methods to cost resource use, and there is some evidence that it decreases overall societal costs to six months' follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Admission avoidance hospital at home, with the option of transfer to hospital, may provide an effective alternative to inpatient care for a select group of older people who have been referred for hospital admission. The intervention probably makes little or no difference to patient health outcomes; may improve satisfaction; probably reduces the likelihood of relocating to residential care; and probably decreases costs.

The Impact of Positive Expiratory Pressure Therapy on Hyperinflation in Patients With COPD

BACKGROUND

Lung hyperinflation is a typical clinical feature of patients with COPD. Given the association between breathing at elevated lung volumes and the manifestation of severe debilitating symptoms, therapeutic interventions such as positive expiratory pressure (PEP) therapy and its variations (temporary, oscillatory) have been devised to mitigate lung hyperinflation. However, the efficacy of these interventions remains to be conclusively demonstrated.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized trials was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Seven databases were screened with no date or language restriction. Two authors independently applied eligibility criteria and assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Outcomes were lung hyperinflation measures detected through changes in inspiratory capacity (IC), functional residual capacity (FRC), total lung capacity (TLC), and residual volume (RV), as well as FEV1, FVC, dyspnea, and physical capacity. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) or mean differences (MDs) and 95% CI were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Seven trials, all with a high risk of bias, were included. Compared to control group, RV significantly decreased (4 studies, n = 231; SMD -0.42 [95% CI -0.77 to -0.08], P = .02), dyspnea improved (n = 321, SMD -1.17 [95% CI -1.68 to -0.66], P < .001), and physical capacity increased (5 studies, n = 311; MD 30.1 [95% CI 19.2-41.0] m, P < .001) with PEP therapy. There was no significant difference between PEP therapy and the control group in TLC, FVC, or FEV1. Only one study reported changes in inspiratory capacity as well as FRC.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with COPD, the effect of PEP therapy on lung hyperinflation is unclear owing to the non-consistent change in lung hyperinflation outcomes, insufficient data, and lack of high-quality trials. Dyspnea and physical capacity might improve with PEP therapy.

Functional respiratory re-education interventions in people with respiratory disease: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

to identify nursing interventions in rehabilitation, within the scope of functional respiratory reeducation, which allow a respiratory function improvement in people with respiratory disease.

METHODS

systematic literature review using the MEDLINE database search, adopting the PICO mnemonic and the Joanna Briggs Institute's assessment of the level of evidence and methodological quality. The search for randomized controlled trials was carried out in June 2021 considering the period from 2015 to 2020, in English or Portuguese.

RESULTS

a sample of nine randomized controlled trials with methodological quality was obtained which highlighted the use of positive expiratory pressure devices as an important component and intervention for respiratory functional reeducation.

CONCLUSIONS

nursing interventions in rehabilitation with an emphasis on functional respiratory reeducation are essential, showing improvements in people's general health.

The Use of Airway Clearance Devices in the Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Rationale: Sputum retention in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a troubling symptom and can lead to reduced quality of life and increased exacerbations. Airway clearance devices are commonly used in COPD; however, their efficacy is unclear and is inconsistent among cohorts.Objectives: This study aims to systematically review the evidence to determine the impact of airway clearance devices in patients with COPD.Methods: Databases for systematic reviews and published evidence were searched. Studies were included if they were randomized and compared an airway clearance device to usual care or control. Studies were required to report at least one of the following: exacerbations, sputum volume, hospitalizations, and health-related quality of life. Data were extracted and assessed for risk of bias, and outcomes were synthesized using RevMan.Results: Eighteen studies with available data were eligible for this review, totaling 855 participants. Airway clearance devices demonstrated significant improvements in sputum volume (-1.07 ml; -0.37 to -1.77). There were significant improvements in the rate of exacerbation frequency at 6 months (rate ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.83; P < 0.01). No significant improvement was noted for the Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire (0.30; -1.56 to -3.41; P = 0.10) in stable patients. There was an improvement of -5.73 (-7.30 to -4.15) for the COPD Assessment Test and -1.72 (-2.85 to -0.59) for the Breathlessness Cough and Sputum Score (P < 0.01).Conclusions: Airway clearance devices can improve exacerbation frequency, sputum clearance, and symptoms in stable COPD. The evidence included in this review was predominantly low- to moderate-grade evidence.

Airway Clearance Techniques: The Right Choice for the Right Patient

The management of bronchial secretions is one of the main problems encountered in a wide spectrum of medical conditions ranging from respiratory disorders, neuromuscular disorders and patients undergoing either thoracic or abdominal surgery. The purpose of this review is illustrate to the reader the different ACTs currently available and the related evidence present in literature. Alongside methods with a strong background behind as postural drainage, manual techniques or PEP systems, the current orientation is increasingly aimed at devices that can mobilize and / or remove secretions. Cough Assist, Vacuum Techniques, systems that modulate airflow have more and more scientific evidence. Different principles combination is a new field of investigation that goes toward an increasing of clinical complexity that will facing us.

Safety and effectiveness of the high-frequency chest wall oscillation vs intrapulmonary percussive ventilation in patients with severe COPD

Purpose

Chest physiotherapy is an important tool in the treatment of COPD. Intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (IPV) and high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO) are techniques designed to create a global percussion of the lung which removes secretions and probably clears the peripheral bronchial tree. We tested the hypothesis that adding IPV or HFCWO to the best pharmacological therapy (PT) may provide additional clinical benefit over chest physiotherapy in patients with severe COPD.

Methods

Sixty patients were randomized into three groups (20 patients in each group): IPV group (treated with PT and IPV), PT group with (treated with PT and HFCWO), and control group (treated with PT alone). Primary outcome measures included results on the dyspnea scale (modified Medical Research Council) and Breathlessness, Cough, and Sputum scale (BCSS), as well as an evaluation of daily life activity (COPD Assessment Test [CAT]). Secondary outcome measures were pulmonary function testing, arterial blood gas analysis, and hematological examinations. Moreover, sputum cell counts were performed at the beginning and at the end of the study.

Results

Patients in both the IPV group and the HFCWO group showed a significant improvement in the tests of dyspnea and daily life activity evaluations (modified Medical Research Council scale, BCSS, and CAT) compared to the control group, as well as in pulmonary function tests (forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity%, total lung capacity, residual volume, diffusing lung capacity monoxide, maximal inspiratory pressure, maximal expiratory pressure) and arterial blood gas values. However, in the group comparison analysis for the same variables between IPV group and HFCWO group, we observed a significant improvement in the IPV group maximal inspiratory pressure, maximal expiratory pressure, BCSS, and CAT. Similar results were observed in changes of sputum cytology with reduction of inflammatory cells (neutrophils and macrophages).

Conclusion

The two techniques improved daily life activities and lung function in patients with severe COPD. IPV demonstrated a significantly greater effectiveness in improving some pulmonary function tests linked to the small bronchial airways obstruction and respiratory muscle strength and scores on health status assessment scales (BCSS and CAT) as well as a reduction of sputum inflammatory cells compared with HFCWO.

Comparison of effectiveness of temporary positive expiratory pressure versus oscillatory positive expiratory pressure in severe COPD patients

INTRODUCTION

In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients few modalities of airway clearance have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing hypersecretion and bronchial obstruction. Positive expiratory pressure (PEP) is one of these.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to compare the effectiveness of 2 devices Temporary PEP (T-PEP) and Oscillatory PEP (O-PEP) which use PEP applied at a low expiratory pressure of 1 cm H₂ O which creates oscillations that decrease bronchial obstruction in reducing COPD exacerbations and improving respiratory and health status assessment parameters. Each has different mechanism of action.

METHODS

A 26 week randomized controlled study evaluated their efficacy in reducing exacerbations and improving health status assessment tests as well as respiratory function parameters in severe to very severe COPD patients. One hundred-twenty patients were enrolled: 40 patients received T-PEP therapy; 40 underwent treatment with O-PEP; 40 constituted the control group. The primary outcome was the reduction of exacerbations after 1, 3 and 6 months; secondary outcomes were improvement of lung function and health status assessment tests [Modified Medical Research Council (MMRC) scale, Breathlessness, Cough, and Sputum Scale (BCSS) scale, and COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score].

RESULTS

Only T-PEP statistically reduced the exacerbations after 1 and 3 months compared to the control group. Both the 2 devices improved dyspnea scale (MMRC), lung function parameters, and health status assessment (CAT) tests compared to the control group. Both interventions were well-tolerated by our patients.

CONCLUSIONS

O-PEP and T-PEP are useful for COPD treatment but only T-PEP reduces exacerbations. Adding tools for airway clearance to medical therapy can help the management of COPD.

Early discharge hospital at home

BACKGROUND

Early discharge hospital at home is a service that provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care. This is an update of a Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with early discharge hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to 9 January 2017: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and EconLit. We searched clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing early discharge hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care for adults. We excluded obstetric, paediatric and mental health hospital at home schemes.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials (N = 4746), six of them new for this update, mainly conducted in high-income countries. We judged most of the studies to have a low or unclear risk of bias. The intervention was delivered by hospital outreach services (17 trials), community-based services (11 trials), and was co-ordinated by a hospital-based stroke team or physician in conjunction with community-based services in four trials.Studies recruiting people recovering from strokeEarly discharge hospital at home probably makes little or no difference to mortality at three to six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.48, N = 1114, 11 trials, moderate-certainty evidence) and may make little or no difference to the risk of hospital readmission (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.66, N = 345, 5 trials, low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home may lower the risk of living in institutional setting at six months (RR 0.63, 96% CI 0.40 to 0.98; N = 574, 4 trials, low-certainty evidence) and might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 795, low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home probably reduces hospital length of stay, as moderate-certainty evidence found that people assigned to hospital at home are discharged from the intervention about seven days earlier than people receiving inpatient care (95% CI 10.19 to 3.17 days earlier, N = 528, 4 trials). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence).Studies recruiting people with a mix of medical conditionsEarly discharge hospital at home probably makes little or no difference to mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49; N = 1247, 8 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). In people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) there was insufficient information to determine the effect of these two approaches on mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.12, N = 496, 5 trials, low-certainty evidence). The intervention probably increases the risk of hospital readmission in a mix of medical conditions, although the results are also compatible with no difference and a relatively large increase in the risk of readmission (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.58, N = 1276, 9 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). Early discharge hospital at home may decrease the risk of readmission for people with COPD (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.13, N = 496, 5 trials low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home may lower the risk of living in an institutional setting (RR 0.69, 0.48 to 0.99; N = 484, 3 trials, low-certainty evidence). The intervention might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 900, low-certainty evidence). The effect of early discharge hospital at home on hospital length of stay for older patients with a mix of conditions ranged from a reduction of 20 days to a reduction of less than half a day (moderate-certainty evidence, N = 767). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence).Studies recruiting people undergoing elective surgeryThree studies did not report higher rates of mortality with hospital at home compared with inpatient care (data not pooled, N = 856, low-certainty evidence; mainly orthopaedic surgery). Hospital at home may lead to little or no difference in readmission to hospital for people who were mainly recovering from orthopaedic surgery (N = 1229, low-certainty evidence). We could not establish the effects of hospital at home on the risk of living in institutional care, due to a lack of data. The intervention might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 1229, low-certainty evidence). People recovering from orthopaedic surgery allocated to early discharge hospital at home were discharged from the intervention on average four days earlier than people allocated to usual inpatient care (4.44 days earlier, 95% CI 6.37 to 2.51 days earlier, , N = 411, 4 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing interest in the potential of early discharge hospital at home services as a less expensive alternative to inpatient care, this review provides insufficient evidence of economic benefit (through a reduction in hospital length of stay) or improved health outcomes.