• Bingfeng Xie, Ping Liu, Qi Wu, and Weineng Xiang.
• Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The First Hospital of Changsha, Hunan, China. Electronic address: xbfiuy@qq.com.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Dec 1; 38 (12): 2713-2717.

IntroductionThe efficacy of inhaled hypertonic saline for bronchiectasis remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of inhaled hypertonic saline versus 0.9% isotonic saline for the treatment of bronchiectasis.MethodsWe have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through April 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of inhaled hypertonic saline versus 0.9% isotonic saline for the treatment of bronchiectasis. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.ResultsFour RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group for bronchiectasis, inhaled hypertonic saline had no obvious influence on forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1, SMD = 0.12; 95% CI = -0.06 to 0.30; P = .18), forced vital capacity (FVC, SMD = 0.10; 95% CI = -0.09 to 0.28; P = .30), sputum expectorated (SMD = -0.03; 95% CI = -2.73 to 2.68; P = .99) or Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) score (SMD = -0.15; 95% CI = -0.89 to 0.58; P = .68).ConclusionsInhaled hypertonic saline and 0.9% isotonic saline show similar efficacy for bronchiectasis.Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.

19 keywords...

hide…