Department of Cystic Fibrosis, Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
National Heart and Lung Insititute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Dec 17;12(12):CD006112. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006112.pub5.
Cystic fibrosis is the most common autosomal recessive disease in white populations, and causes respiratory dysfunction in the majority of individuals. Numerous types of respiratory muscle training to improve respiratory function and health-related quality of life in people with cystic fibrosis have been reported in the literature. Hence a systematic review of the literature is needed to establish the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training (either inspiratory or expiratory muscle training) on clinical outcomes in cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review.
To determine the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training on clinical outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis.
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials register comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Date of most recent search: 11 June 2020. A hand search of the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis and Pediatric Pulmonology was performed, along with an electronic search of online trial databases. Date of most recent search: 05 October 2020.
Randomised controlled studies comparing respiratory muscle training with a control group in people with cystic fibrosis.
Review authors independently selected articles for inclusion, evaluated the methodological quality of the studies, and extracted data. Additional information was sought from trial authors where necessary. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE system.
Authors identified 20 studies, of which 10 studies with 238 participants met the review's inclusion criteria. There was wide variation in the methodological and written quality of the included studies. Four of the 10 included studies were published as abstracts only and lacked concise details, thus limiting the information available. Eight studies were parallel studies and two of a cross-over design. Respiratory muscle training interventions varied dramatically, with frequency, intensity and duration ranging from thrice weekly to twice daily, 20% to 80% of maximal effort, and 10 to 30 minutes, respectively. Participant numbers ranged from 11 to 39 participants in the included studies; five studies were in adults only, one in children only and four in a combination of children and adults. No differences between treatment and control were reported in the primary outcome of pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in one second and forced vital capacity) or postural stability (very low-quality evidence). Although no change was reported in exercise capacity as assessed by the maximum rate of oxygen use and distance completed in a six minute walk test, a 10% improvement in exercise duration was found when working at 60% of maximal effort in one study (n = 20) (very low-quality evidence). In a further study (n = 18), when working at 80% of maximal effort, health-related quality of life improved in the mastery and emotion domains (very low-quality evidence). With regards to the review's secondary outcomes, one study (n = 11) found a change in intramural pressure, functional residual capacity and maximal inspiratory pressure following training (very low-quality evidence). Another study (n=36) reported improvements in maximal inspiratory pressure following training (P < 0.001) (very low-quality evidence). A further study (n = 22) reported that respiratory muscle endurance was longer in the training group (P < 0.01). No studies reported significant differences on any other secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses could not be performed due to a lack of consistency and insufficient detail in reported outcome measures.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to suggest whether this intervention is beneficial or not. Healthcare practitioners should consider the use of respiratory muscle training on a case-by-case basis. Further research of reputable methodological quality is needed to determine the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training in people with cystic fibrosis. Researchers should consider the following clinical outcomes in future studies; respiratory muscle function, pulmonary function, exercise capacity, hospital admissions, and health-related quality of life. Sensory-perceptual changes, such as respiratory effort sensation (e.g. rating of perceived breathlessness) and peripheral effort sensation (e.g. rating of perceived exertion) may also help to elucidate mechanisms underpinning the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training.
囊性纤维化是白种人群中最常见的常染色体隐性疾病,它会导致大多数个体的呼吸功能障碍。有大量文献报道了各种类型的呼吸肌训练,以改善囊性纤维化患者的呼吸功能和健康相关生活质量。因此,需要对文献进行系统评价,以确定呼吸肌训练(吸气肌训练或呼气肌训练)对囊性纤维化患者临床结局的有效性。这是先前发表的一篇综述的更新。
确定呼吸肌训练对囊性纤维化患者临床结局的有效性。
我们检索了 Cochrane 囊性纤维化和遗传疾病组试验注册库,其中包括通过全面电子数据库检索和相关期刊的手工检索以及会议论文集的摘要手册中确定的参考文献。最近一次检索日期:2020 年 6 月 11 日。还对《囊性纤维化杂志》和《儿科肺脏学杂志》进行了手工检索,并对在线试验数据库进行了电子检索。最近一次检索日期:2020 年 10 月 5 日。
比较呼吸肌训练与囊性纤维化患者对照组的随机对照研究。
综述作者独立选择纳入的文章,评估研究的方法学质量,并提取数据。必要时向试验作者寻求额外信息。使用 GRADE 系统评估证据质量。
作者确定了 20 项研究,其中 10 项研究(238 名参与者)符合综述的纳入标准。纳入研究的方法学和书面质量存在很大差异。其中 4 项纳入研究仅以摘要形式发表,缺乏简明详细的信息,因此限制了可用信息。8 项研究为平行研究,2 项为交叉设计。呼吸肌训练干预措施差异很大,频率、强度和持续时间分别为每周 3 次至每日 2 次、最大努力的 20%至 80%和 10 至 30 分钟。纳入研究的参与者人数从 11 名到 39 名不等;5 项研究仅纳入成年人,1 项研究仅纳入儿童,4 项研究纳入儿童和成年人。主要结局为一秒用力呼气容积和用力肺活量,或姿势稳定性,在治疗组和对照组之间没有差异(极低质量证据)。尽管在最大耗氧量和六分钟步行试验完成距离评估的运动能力方面没有报告任何变化,但在一项研究(n = 20)中,当以 60%最大努力工作时,运动时间延长了 10%(非常低质量证据)。在另一项研究(n = 18)中,当以 80%最大努力工作时,健康相关生活质量在掌握和情绪领域得到改善(非常低质量证据)。关于综述的次要结局,一项研究(n = 11)发现训练后气道内压力、功能残气量和最大吸气压力发生变化(非常低质量证据)。另一项研究(n = 36)报告了训练后最大吸气压力的改善(P < 0.001)(非常低质量证据)。另一项研究(n = 22)报告呼吸肌耐力在训练组更长(P < 0.01)。没有研究报告其他次要结局有显著差异。由于报告的结局测量缺乏一致性和详细信息,因此无法进行荟萃分析。
目前尚无足够证据表明这种干预是否有益。医疗保健从业者应根据具体情况考虑使用呼吸肌训练。需要进一步开展具有良好方法学质量的研究,以确定呼吸肌训练在囊性纤维化患者中的有效性。研究人员在未来的研究中应考虑以下临床结局;呼吸肌功能、肺功能、运动能力、住院和健康相关生活质量。感觉知觉变化,如呼吸努力感觉(例如,感知呼吸急促程度)和外周努力感觉(例如,感知用力程度),也可能有助于阐明呼吸肌训练有效性的机制。