A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of an expiratory flow accelerator device versus positive expiratory pressure for tracheobronchial airway clearance after lung cancer lobectomy: a preliminary study. | LitMetric

Objective: A new type of device has recently been introduced in chest physiotherapy as an aid to tracheo-bronchial airway clearance: expiratory flow accelerator (EFA). It promotes mucus clearance without generating any pressure gradient, allowing patients to breathe at tidal volume against no resistance.

Design: Pilot randomized controlled study.

Setting: Tertiary hospital.

Participants: Fifty adult patients who underwent lung cancer lobectomy were randomized to undergo chest physiotherapy with EFA (n=26) or PEP (n=24).

Interventions: EFA; PEP bottle.

Main Outcomes: Incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) and length of stay.

Secondary Outcomes: trends in inspiratory capacity, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and dyspnoea. Patients rated user-friendliness of the two devices on a 5-point Likert scale.

Results: A slightly different incidence of PPCs was observed between the EFA and PEP group. Nevertheless, the length of stay was similar in the two groups. No substantial differences were seen in trends of inspiratory capacity, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, dyspnoea between the two groups. Patient-reported user-friendliness of the two devices did not differ significantly, although the use of the EFA device appeared less strenuous.

Conclusions: Results of this pilot study point to the use of EFA as an alternative treatment option rather than as a replacement for the PEP bottle in chest physiotherapy following lung cancer lobectomy. EFA may be preferable for weaker patients and/or with airway leakages in whom PEP has limited indications. Further investigation in a larger sample is required to statistically confirm the findings. Clinical Trial Registration Number ChiCTR-ONC-17013255.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2019.01.011DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lung cancer
12
cancer lobectomy
12
chest physiotherapy
12
expiratory flow
8
flow accelerator
8
airway clearance
8
efa pep
8
trends inspiratory
8
inspiratory capacity
8
capacity respiratory
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!