Jun Kako1,2, Masamitsu Kobayashi3,4, Yasufumi Oosono3, Kohei Kajiwara1, Mika Miyashita1. 1. Division of Nursing Science, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, Japan. 2. Section of Liaison Psychiatry and Palliative Medicine, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Yushima, Tokyo, Japan. 3. Community Health Nursing, National Defense Medical College, Saitama, Japan. 4. School of Nursing, Graduate School of Nursing, Chiba University, Inohana, Chiba, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dyspnea is a common distressing symptom in patients with malignant and nonmalignant diseases. Fan therapy, which uses a fan to blow air toward the patient's face, can alleviate dyspnea; however, its efficacy remains unclear. AIM: To examine the immediate efficacy of fan therapy for alleviation of dyspnea at rest. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE EBSCO, CINAHL EBSCO, and Scopus from January 1, 1987, to August 21, 2018 (PROSPERO-CRD42018108610). In addition, we hand-searched studies and used the similar articles feature on PubMed to search for articles. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of fan therapy with placebo or other interventions to alleviate dyspnea at rest, in which patients were aged ≥18 years, were eligible for inclusion in the review. We excluded articles on long-term intervention involving fan therapy and complex intervention (including fan therapy). The risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Cochrane tool, and the meta-analysis was performed using RevMan version 5.3. RESULTS: We identified a total of 218 studies; 2 met our criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Fan therapy significantly improved dyspnea at rest in terminally ill patients with cancer compared to control groups (mean difference: -1.31, 95% confidence interval: -1.79 to -0.83, P < .001). There were no studies that met the inclusion criteria regarding fan therapy for patients with nonmalignant disease. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated that fan therapy may be an effective intervention for dyspnea at rest in patients with terminal cancer.
BACKGROUND: Dyspnea is a common distressing symptom in patients with malignant and nonmalignant diseases. Fan therapy, which uses a fan to blow air toward the patient's face, can alleviate dyspnea; however, its efficacy remains unclear. AIM: To examine the immediate efficacy of fan therapy for alleviation of dyspnea at rest. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE EBSCO, CINAHL EBSCO, and Scopus from January 1, 1987, to August 21, 2018 (PROSPERO-CRD42018108610). In addition, we hand-searched studies and used the similar articles feature on PubMed to search for articles. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of fan therapy with placebo or other interventions to alleviate dyspnea at rest, in which patients were aged ≥18 years, were eligible for inclusion in the review. We excluded articles on long-term intervention involving fan therapy and complex intervention (including fan therapy). The risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Cochrane tool, and the meta-analysis was performed using RevMan version 5.3. RESULTS: We identified a total of 218 studies; 2 met our criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Fan therapy significantly improved dyspnea at rest in terminally ill patients with cancer compared to control groups (mean difference: -1.31, 95% confidence interval: -1.79 to -0.83, P < .001). There were no studies that met the inclusion criteria regarding fan therapy for patients with nonmalignant disease. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated that fan therapy may be an effective intervention for dyspnea at rest in patients with terminal cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
dyspnea; fan therapy; meta-analysis; nursing; palliative care; terminal cancer
Authors: Tim Luckett; Mary Roberts; Tracy Smith; Maja Garcia; Sarah Dunn; Flavia Swan; Caleb Ferguson; Slavica Kochovska; Jane L Phillips; Mark Pearson; David C Currow; Miriam J Johnson Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 3.317