Study design (if review, criteria of inclusion for studies)
prospective crossover study
Participants
18 CF patients
Interventions
6 sessions of physiotherapy over 6 separate days. These consisted of 2 sessions of either HAT, flutter valve or and sitting in the bath with sounds without vibration (placebo) for 30 minutes each
Outcome measures
The efficacy was investigated by measuring the weight of wet and dry sputum after each session and by change in spirometry values. The preference was assessed by a questionnaire completed by patients at the end of the study about their preference of which type of physiotherapy received.
Main results
The weight of both dry and wet sputum produced was similar in the 3 arms of the study. Spirometry values but not oxygen saturation were reduced after HAT and flutter therapy sessions. HAT therapy was preferred to flutter and placebo in terms of breathlessness, ease of sputum production and relaxation. Of the patients, 70% stated that they would choose HAT as their preferred physiotherapy method compared to 0% for flutter (X(2) = 20.3, p < 0.0001). There were no procedure-related complications in any of the 3 arms of the study. The effect of HAT, however, on sputum production was not superior to flutter or placebo.
Authors' conclusions
HAT was found to be safe, well tolerated and favoured by the majority of CF patients.
Keywords: Adult; hydration; Hydrotherapy; pharmacological_intervention; flutter; oscillating devices; Airway clearance technique; Chest physiotherapy; non pharmacological intervention - devices OR physiotherapy;