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on ClinicalTrials.gov and on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for any planned, ongoing and unpublished studies.The date of the most recent literature searches: 20 January 2015.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.

Inspiratory muscle training for asthma.

BACKGROUND: In some people with asthma, expiratory airflow limitation, premature closure of small airways, activity of inspiratory muscles at the end of expiration and reduced pulmonary compliance may lead to lung hyperinflation. With the increase in lung volume, chest wall geometry is modified, shortening the inspiratory muscles and leaving them at a sub-optimal position in their length-tension relationship. Thus, the capacity of these muscles to generate tension is reduced. An increase in cross-sectional area of the inspiratory muscles caused by hypertrophy could offset the functional weakening induced by hyperinflation. Previous studies have shown that inspiratory muscle training promotes diaphragm hypertrophy in healthy people and patients with chronic heart failure, and increases the proportion of type I fibres and the size of type II fibres of the external intercostal muscles in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, its effects on clinical outcomes in patients with asthma are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of inspiratory muscle training with either an external resistive device or threshold loading in people with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov and reference lists of included studies. The latest search was performed in November 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that involved the use of an external inspiratory muscle training device versus a control (sham or no inspiratory training device) in people with stable asthma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies involving 113 adults. Participants in four studies had mild to moderate asthma and the fifth study included participants independent of their asthma severity. There were substantial differences between the studies, including the training protocol, duration of training sessions (10 to 30 minutes) and duration of the intervention (3 to 25 weeks). Three clinical trials were produced by the same research group. Risk of bias in the included studies was difficult to ascertain accurately due to poor reporting of methods.The included studies showed a statistically significant increase in inspiratory muscle strength, measured by maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax) (mean difference (MD) 13.34 cmH2O, 95% CI 4.70 to 21.98, 4 studies, 84 participants, low quality evidence). Our other primary outcome, exacerbations requiring a course of oral or inhaled corticosteroids or emergency department visits, was not reported. For the secondary outcomes, results from one trial showed no statistically significant difference between the inspiratory muscle training group and the control group for maximal expiratory pressure, peak expiratory flow rate, forced expiratory volume in one second, forced vital capacity, sensation of dyspnoea and use of beta2-agonist. There were no studies describing inspiratory muscle endurance, hospital admissions or days off work or school. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no conclusive evidence in this review to support or refute inspiratory muscle training for asthma. The evidence was limited by the small number of trials with few participants together with the risk of bias. More well conducted randomised controlled trials are needed. Future trials should investigate the following outcomes: lung function, exacerbation rate, asthma symptoms, hospital admissions, use of medications and days off work or school. Inspiratory muscle training should also be assessed in people with more severe asthma and conducted in children with asthma.