Physiotherapist perspectives of airway clearance techniques in bronchiectasis.

INTRODUCTION: Our understanding regarding the personalization of airway clearance techniques (ACTs) in bronchiectasis is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine physiotherapist perceptions regarding the prescription of ACTs in inpatients and outpatients with bronchiectasis. METHODS: A single-center qualitative study using semi-structured interviews of physiotherapists who treated individuals with bronchiectasis was undertaken. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data was analyzed using the thematic framework approach described by Braun and Clark. NVivo 12 software assisted with coding and thematic analysis of the interview transcripts. Findings were summarized into major conceptual themes. Participant demographic data was also obtained. RESULTS: Eleven physiotherapists participated in the interviews. Central to all themes was the complexity of physiotherapy clinical decision-making regarding ACT prescription. Main themes included: organizational factors (i.e. workload, scope of service, access to resources/ACTs); patient-related factors (i.e. symptom severity, finances, disease-specific knowledge, social commitments, clinical setting, and perceived benefit); and physiotherapist/profession-related factors (i.e. clinical experience, access to professional support and education, awareness of evidence of ACTs, and evaluating ACT effectiveness). CONCLUSION: Physiotherapists regularly and routinely prescribe ACTs for individuals with bronchiectasis allowing for a multitude of competing factors. These factors should be considered by physiotherapists to enhance the personalized prescription of ACTs and may help promote patient adherence to ACTs to improve outcomes.

Patient perspectives of airway clearance techniques in bronchiectasis.

INTRODUCTION: While airway clearance techniques (ACTs) are recommended for individuals with bronchiectasis, data suggests the use of and adherence to ACTs is poor. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify patient perceptions regarding ACTs, the barriers and facilitators to ACTs, and factors affecting adherence. METHODS: A multi-center qualitative study using in-depth semi-structured interviews of individuals with bronchiectasis was undertaken. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data was analyzed using the thematic framework approach described by Braun and Clark. NVIVO™ 12 software assisted with coding and thematic analysis of the interview transcripts. Data saturation was achieved when no new common themes were identified. Findings were summarized into major conceptual themes. Participant demographic data was also obtained. RESULTS: Twenty-four participants participated in semi-structured interviews. The main facilitators to using ACTs included a perceived health and quality of life benefit, a tailored approach to ACTs and the use of self-management strategies. Main barriers included lack of time and motivation, lack of access to resources, and a lack of perceived health benefit. A number of factors were identified by participants that may help promote adherence including combining and trialing different ACTs, receiving regular ACT reviews and education from physiotherapists, and having good social support. CONCLUSION: To assist the personalized prescription of ACTs, these facilitators and barriers should be considered by clinicians to help promote adherence and improve patient outcomes.

Measuring airway clearance outcomes in bronchiectasis: a review.

While airway clearance techniques (ACTs) are recommended for individuals with bronchiectasis, many trials have demonstrated inconsistent benefits or failed to reach their primary outcome. This review determined the most common clinical and patient-reported outcome measures used to evaluate the efficacy of ACTs in bronchiectasis. A literature search of five databases using relevant keywords and filtering for studies published in English, up until the end of August 2019, was completed. Studies included randomised controlled trials, using crossover or any other trial design, and abstracts. Studies were included where the control was placebo, no intervention, standard care, usual care or an active comparator. Adults with bronchiectasis not related to cystic fibrosis were included. Extracted data comprised study authors, design, duration, intervention, outcome measures and results. The search identified 27 published studies and one abstract. The most common clinical outcome measures were sputum volume (n=23), lung function (n=17) and pulse oximetry (n=9). The most common patient-reported outcomes were health-related quality of life (measured with St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, n=4), cough-related quality of life (measured with Leicester Cough Questionnaire, n=4) and dyspnoea (measured with Borg/modified Borg scale, n=8). Sputum volume, lung function, dyspnoea and health- and cough-related quality of life appear to be the most common clinical and patient-reported measures of airway clearance treatment efficacy.

Comparing the Performance Characteristics of Different Positive Expiratory Pressure Devices.

BACKGROUND: Positive expiratory pressure (PEP) devices are widely used in clinical settings, yet the performance characteristics of these devices remain relatively unknown. This study compared the performance characteristics of 6 airway clearance devices by varying resistance and flow. METHODS: Mean PEP, peak PEP, oscillation frequency, and amplitude PEP of the Flutter, Pari PEP S, Acapella Choice, Acapella DM, Acapella DH, and Aerobika devices were obtained across flows of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 L/min and at low, medium, and high resistance using an experimental apparatus custom-built for this bench study. RESULTS: Performance characteristics of the devices differed across flows and resistance settings (device × flow/resistance interaction; P < .001). At a fixed resistance, increasing flows increased mean PEP produced by the Acapella Choice, Acapella DH, Aerobika, and Pari PEP S. Increasing flow resulted in minimal change in mean PEP produced by the Flutter and Acapella DM. Increasing flow increased peak PEP and amplitude PEP produced by all devices except the Acapella DH and Acapella Choice. Increasing flow maintained or increased oscillation frequency for all devices except the Flutter. At a fixed flow, increasing resistance increased mean PEP produced by all devices except the Acapella Choice. Increasing resistance increased peak PEP produced by the Acapella DM, Aerobika, and Pari PEP S but resulted in minimal change in peak PEP for the Flutter and Acapella Choice. Increasing resistance either maintained or increased oscillation frequency for all devices. Amplitude PEP was either maintained or increased during oscillations when increasing resistance for all devices except the Flutter. CONCLUSIONS: PEP devices produced small but statistically significant variations in performance characteristics across a range of flows and resistance settings. There appear to be flow-dependent and non-flow-dependent devices. Varying flow or resistance typically maintained or increased the production of mean, peak, and amplitude PEP and oscillation frequency.