Mini-symposium: Airway clearance in cystic fibrosisAirway clearance devices in cystic fibrosis
Section snippets
Positive expiratory pressure
The PEP device is the simplest and least expensive of the airway clearance devices. The PEP mask was developed in Denmark in the late 1970s as an alternative to CCPT. The mask has a one-way inhalation valve and an expiratory resistor. Exhalation through the resistor generates positive pressure in the airways which can be measured with a manometer or pressure indicator. Resistance orifices of different diameters can be chosen so that individual patients can generate pressures of 10–20 cm H2O. The
Flutter®
The Flutter® (Axcan Scandipharm, Birmingham, Alabama, USA) is a small, handheld, mucus clearance device that provides PEP therapy with oral airway oscillations. It is shaped like a pipe with a hardened plastic mouthpiece at one end, a plastic, protective, perforated cover at the other end, and a high-density stainless steel ball resting in a plastic circular cone on the inside (Fig. 2). The patient sits comfortably and inhales to about 75% of inspiratory capacity, then exhales through the
Conclusion
Several devices have been developed to enhance airway clearance in CF patients. With the exception of the PEP valve, these devices all involve airway oscillation, either orally or via chest wall vibration. The advantage of these devices is that they can be used by patients independently without the need for an assistant or caregiver. Most of these devices have been studied in either short- or long-term comparisons with CCPT. The studies are generally underpowered and it is not clear which
Practice points
- •
Airway clearance devices as alternatives to CCPT allow CF patients to choose the therapy that best fits their lifestyle and allows greatest independence
- •
Airway clearance devices are preferred by many patients compared to CCPT and may result in better adherence.
- •
PEP may be more effective for airway clearance than CCPT.
- •
Oscillating positive expiratory pressure devices and HFCWO appear to be at least as effective as CCPT.
REFERENCES (32)
- et al.
Long-term comparative trial of conventional postural drainage and percussion versus positive expiratory pressure physiotherapy in the treatment of cystic fibrosis
J Pediatr
(1997) - et al.
Evidence for physical therapies (airway clearance and physical training) in cystic fibrosis: An overview of five Cochrane systematic reviews
Respir Med
(2006) - et al.
Nonpharmacologic airway clearance therapies: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines
Chest
(2006) - et al.
Sputum rheology changes in cystic fibrosis lung disease following two different types of physiotherapy: flutter vs autogenic drainage
Chest
(1998) - et al.
Efficacy of the Flutter device for airway mucus clearance in patients cystic fibrosis
J Pediatr
(1994) - et al.
Comparison of the flutter device to standard chest physiotherapy in hospitalized patients with cystic fibrosis: a pilot study
Chest
(1998) - et al.
Long-term comparative trial of positive expiratory pressure versus oscillating positive expiratory pressure (flutter) physiotherapy in the treatment of cystic fibrosis
J Pediatr
(2001) - et al.
Comparison of intrapulmonary percussive ventilation and chest physiotherapy. A pilot study in patients with cystic fibrosis
Chest
(1994) - et al.
Pulmonary function and sputum production in patients with cystic fibrosis: a pilot study comparing the PercussiveTech HF device and standard chest physiotherapy
Chest
(2004) - et al.
Effect of high frequency oral airway and chest wall oscillation and conventional chest physiotherapy on expectoration in patients with stable cystic fibrosis
Chest
(1998)