• Panminerva medica · Dec 2022

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    Comparison of two mechanical insufflation-exsufflation devices in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a preliminary study.

    • Antonello Nicolini, Paola Prato, Laura Beccarelli, Bruna Grecchi, Giancarlo Garuti, Paolo Banfi, and Francesco D'Abrosca.
    • Unit of Respiratory Diseases, General Hospital, Sestri Levante, Genoa, Italy.
    • Panminerva Med. 2022 Dec 1; 64 (4): 525531525-531.

    BackgroundAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is an incurable neurodegenerative disease affecting upper and lower motor neurons and resulting in progressive skeletal muscle weakness. Weak cough and difficulty in clearing secretions are often the cause of pulmonary infections and acute respiratory failure. Cough assistance is commonly used to provide support in coughing for patients with ALS.MethodsThis was a preliminary parallel randomized study comparing two cough-assist devices: one utilizing mechanical insufflation/exsufflation (MI/E) and expiratory flow accelerator (EFA) technology, the other utilizing only MI/E technology. The aim was to compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of the two devices. Thirty patients with ALS and similar severity and functional scale were enrolled. The primary outcome was the change in respiratory function, respiratory muscle function, gas exchange, and peak cough expiratory flow as an indicator of cough efficacy. Secondary outcomes were the number of exacerbations at 1, 6 and 12 months of treatment, and the patient-perceived comfort/distress related to the interventions together with the perceived efficacy of cough.ResultsThirty subjects were recruited and randomized into the two groups (1:1 ratio). Primary outcomes : respiratory function parameters decreased over time in both groups, but significantly less in the Kalos group, as did the respiratory muscle strength parameters and peak cough flows. Gas exchanges decreased over time in both groups with no clinically relevant differences between groups. Secondary outcomes : there were no significant differences between groups regarding the number of exacerbations over time. No adverse events were reported. All participants, in both groups, reported a similar increase in perceived cough efficacy and there was no significant difference in comfort and distress between the two treatments.ConclusionsThe cough-assist device with EFA technology performed better than a traditional MI/E device in ALS patients regarding respiratory function and cough efficacy, although number of exacerbations and acceptability of the two devices was similar. Following these promising preliminary results, further investigation is required in a larger cohort to confirm the superiority of EFA technology associated with a MI/E device.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…