Effect of high-frequency chest wall oscillation versus chest physiotherapy on lung function after lung transplant.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the effects of chest physiotherapy (CPT) and high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO) on lung function in lung transplant recipients. BACKGROUND: Chest physiotherapy and HFCWO are routinely used after lung transplant to attenuate dyspnea, increase expiratory flow, and improve secretion clearance. METHODS: In a two-group experimental, crossover design with repeated-measures, 45 lung transplant recipients (27 single, 18 bilateral; 64% male; mean age, 57 years) were randomized to receive CPT at 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM followed by HFCWO at 6:00 PM and 10:00 PM (n=22) or vice versa (n=23) on postoperative day 3. Dyspnea (modified Borg score), Spo2/FiO2, and peak expiratory flow (PEF) were measured pre-treatment and post-treatment. Data were analyzed using chi-square tests, t tests, and linear mixed effects models. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant treatment effect for dyspnea or PEF in patients who received HFCWO versus CPT. However, there was a significant treatment effect on the Spo2/FiO2 ratio (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results suggest that lung function (measured by Spo2/FiO2) improves with HFWCO after lung transplantation. Although dyspnea and PEF did not differ significantly between treatment types, HFCWO may be an effective, feasible alternative to CPT.

CNE article: pain after lung transplant: high-frequency chest wall oscillation vs chest physiotherapy.

Background Chest physiotherapy and high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO) are routinely used after lung transplant to facilitate removal of secretions. To date, no studies have been done to investigate which therapy is more comfortable and preferred by lung transplant recipients. Patients who have less pain may mobilize secretions, heal, and recover faster. Objectives To compare effects of HFCWO versus chest physiotherapy on pain and preference in lung transplant recipients. Methods In a 2-group experimental, repeated-measures design, 45 lung transplant recipients (27 single lung, 18 bilateral) were randomized to chest physiotherapy (10 AM, 2 PM) followed by HFCWO (6 PM, 10 PM; group 1, n=22) or vice versa (group 2, n=23) on postoperative day 3. A verbal numeric rating scale was used to measure pain before and after treatment. At the end of the treatment sequence, a 4-item patient survey was administered to assess treatment preference, pain, and effectiveness. Data were analyzed with χ(2) and t tests and repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results A significant interaction was found between mean difference in pain scores from before to after treatment and treatment method; pain scores decreased more when HFCWO was done at 10 AM and 6 PM (P =.04). Bilateral transplant recipients showed a significant preference for HFCWO over chest physiotherapy (11 [85%] vs 2 [15%], P=.01). However, single lung recipients showed no significant difference in preference between the 2 treatments (11 [42%] vs 14 [54%]). Conclusions HFCWO seems to provide greater decreases in pain scores than does chest physiotherapy. Bilateral lung transplant recipients preferred HFCWO to chest physiotherapy. HFCWO may be an effective, feasible alternative to chest physiotherapy. (American Journal of Critical Care. 2013;22:115-125).