首页> 外文期刊>Pediatric Pulmonology >Lessons learned from a randomized trial of airway secretion clearance techniques in cystic fibrosis.
【24h】

Lessons learned from a randomized trial of airway secretion clearance techniques in cystic fibrosis.

机译:从囊性纤维化中气道分泌物清除技术的随机试验中学到的经验教训。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

RATIONALE: Airway secretion clearance therapies are a cornerstone of cystic fibrosis care, however longitudinal comparative studies are rare. Our objectives were to compare three therapies [postural drainage and percussion: (postural drainage), flutter device (FD), and high frequency chest wall oscillation: (vest)], by studying (1) change in pulmonary function; (2) time to need for intravenous (IV) antibiotics, (3) use of pulmonary therapies, (4) adherence to treatment, (5) treatment satisfaction, and (6) quality of life. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to one of three therapies twice daily. Clinical outcomes were assessed quarterly over 3 years. RESULTS: Enrollment goals were not met, and withdrawal rates were high, especially in postural drainage (51%) and FD (26%), compared to vest (9%), resulting in early termination. FEV(1) decline, time to need IV antibiotics, and other pulmonary therapies were not different. The annual FEF(25-75%) predicted rate of decline was greater in those using vest (P = 0.02). Adherence was not significantly different (P = 0.09). Overall treatment satisfaction was higher in vest and FD than in postural drainage (P < 0.05). Health-related quality of life was not different. The rate of FEV(1) decline was 1.23% predicted/year. CONCLUSIONS: The study was ended early due to dropout and smaller than expected decline in FEV(1). Patients were more satisfied with vest and FD. The longitudinal decline in FEF(25-75%) was faster in vest; we found no other difference in lung function decline, taken together this warrants further study. The slow decline in FEV(1) illustrates the difficulty with FEV(1) decline as a clinical trial outcome.
机译:理由:气道分泌物清除疗法是囊性纤维化护理的基石,但是纵向比较研究很少。我们的目标是通过研究(1)肺功能的变化,比较三种疗法[体位引流和敲击:(体位引流),扑动装置(FD)和高频胸壁​​震荡:(背心)]。 (2)需要静脉注射(IV)抗生素的时间,(3)肺部疗法的使用,(4)坚持治疗,(5)治疗的满意度和(6)生活质量。方法:每天两次将参与者随机分配到三种疗法中的一种。在3年中每季度评估临床结局。结果:未达到入学目标,退出率很高,尤其是体位引流(51%)和FD(26%),而背心(9%)导致提前终止。 FEV(1)下降,需要静脉使用抗生素的时间和其他肺部治疗没有区别。使用背心的人的年度FEF(25-75%)预测下降率更大(P = 0.02)。坚持没有显着差异(P = 0.09)。背心和FD的总体治疗满意度高于体位引流(P <0.05)。与健康相关的生活质量没有不同。 FEV(1)的下降率为预测的/年的1.23%。结论:由于辍学且FEV(1)的下降小于预期,该研究提前结束。患者对背心和FD更满意。背心FEF的纵向下降幅度(25-75%)更快。我们发现肺功能下降没有其他差异,因此值得进一步研究。 FEV(1)的缓慢下降说明了FEV(1)下降作为临床试验结果的困难。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号