Paul Burnham1, Gemma Stanford2,3, Ruth Stewart4. 1. Servicio de Medicina Fisica y Rehabilitacion, Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain. 2. Department of Cystic Fibrosis, Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 3. National Heart and Lung Insititute, Imperial College London, London, UK. 4. Royal Hospital for Children and Young People, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autogenic drainage is an airway clearance technique that was developed by Jean Chevaillier in 1967. The technique is characterised by breathing control using expiratory airflow to mobilise secretions from smaller to larger airways. Secretions are cleared independently by adjusting the depth and speed of respiration in a sequence of controlled breathing techniques during exhalation. The technique requires training, concentration and effort from the individual but it has previously been shown to be an effective treatment option for those who are seeking techniques to support and promote independence. However, at a time where the trajectory and demographics of the disease are changing, it is important to systematically review the evidence demonstrating that autogenic drainage is an effective intervention for people with cystic fibrosis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness of autogenic drainage in people with cystic fibrosis with other physiotherapy airway clearance techniques. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, as well as two ongoing trials registers (02 February 2021). Date of most recent search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 06 July 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We identified randomised and quasi-randomised controlled studies comparing autogenic drainage to another airway clearance technique or no therapy in people with cystic fibrosis for at least two treatment sessions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessments of risk of bias were independently performed by three authors. The authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system. The authors contacted seven teams of investigators for further information pertinent to their published studies. MAIN RESULTS: Searches retrieved 64 references to 37 individual studies, of which eight (n = 212) were eligible for inclusion. One study was of parallel design with the remaining seven being cross-over in design; participant numbers ranged from 4 to 75. The total study duration varied between four days and two years. The age of participants ranged between seven and 63 years with a wide range of disease severity reported. Six studies enrolled participants who were clinically stable, whilst participants in two studies received treatment whilst hospitalised with an infective exacerbation. All studies compared autogenic drainage to one (or more) other recognised airway clearance technique. Exercise is commonly used as an alternative therapy by people with cystic fibrosis; however, there were no studies identified comparing exercise with autogenic drainage. The certainty of the evidence was generally low or very low. The main reasons for downgrading the level of evidence were the frequent use of a cross-over design, outcome reporting bias and the inability to blind participants. The review's primary outcome, forced expiratory volume in one second, was the most common outcome measured and was reported by all eight studies; only three studies reported on quality of life (also a primary outcome of the review). One study reported on adverse events and described a decrease in oxygen saturation levels whilst performing active cycle of breathing techniques, but not with autogenic drainage. Seven of the eight included studies measured forced vital capacity and three of the studies used mid peak expiratory flow (per cent predicted) as an outcome. Six studies reported sputum weight. Less commonly used outcomes included oxygen saturation levels, personal preference, hospital admissions, intravenous antibiotics and pseudomonas gene expression. There were no statistically significant differences found between any of the techniques used with respect to the outcomes measured except when autogenic drainage was described as being the preferred technique of the participants in one study over postural drainage and percussion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Autogenic drainage is a challenging technique that requires commitment from the individual. As such, this intervention merits systematic review to ensure its effectiveness for people with cystic fibrosis, particularly in an era where treatment options are changing rapidly. From the studies assessed, autogenic drainage was not found to be superior to any other form of airway clearance technique. Larger studies are required to better evaluate autogenic drainage in comparison to other airway clearance techniques in view of the relatively small number of participants in this review and the complex study designs. The studies recruited a range of participants and were not powered to assess non-inferiority. The varied length and design of the studies made the analysis of pooled data challenging.
BACKGROUND: Autogenic drainage is an airway clearance technique that was developed by Jean Chevaillier in 1967. The technique is characterised by breathing control using expiratory airflow to mobilise secretions from smaller to larger airways. Secretions are cleared independently by adjusting the depth and speed of respiration in a sequence of controlled breathing techniques during exhalation. The technique requires training, concentration and effort from the individual but it has previously been shown to be an effective treatment option for those who are seeking techniques to support and promote independence. However, at a time where the trajectory and demographics of the disease are changing, it is important to systematically review the evidence demonstrating that autogenic drainage is an effective intervention for people with cystic fibrosis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness of autogenic drainage in people with cystic fibrosis with other physiotherapy airway clearance techniques. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, as well as two ongoing trials registers (02 February 2021). Date of most recent search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 06 July 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We identified randomised and quasi-randomised controlled studies comparing autogenic drainage to another airway clearance technique or no therapy in people with cystic fibrosis for at least two treatment sessions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessments of risk of bias were independently performed by three authors. The authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system. The authors contacted seven teams of investigators for further information pertinent to their published studies. MAIN RESULTS: Searches retrieved 64 references to 37 individual studies, of which eight (n = 212) were eligible for inclusion. One study was of parallel design with the remaining seven being cross-over in design; participant numbers ranged from 4 to 75. The total study duration varied between four days and two years. The age of participants ranged between seven and 63 years with a wide range of disease severity reported. Six studies enrolled participants who were clinically stable, whilst participants in two studies received treatment whilst hospitalised with an infective exacerbation. All studies compared autogenic drainage to one (or more) other recognised airway clearance technique. Exercise is commonly used as an alternative therapy by people with cystic fibrosis; however, there were no studies identified comparing exercise with autogenic drainage. The certainty of the evidence was generally low or very low. The main reasons for downgrading the level of evidence were the frequent use of a cross-over design, outcome reporting bias and the inability to blind participants. The review's primary outcome, forced expiratory volume in one second, was the most common outcome measured and was reported by all eight studies; only three studies reported on quality of life (also a primary outcome of the review). One study reported on adverse events and described a decrease in oxygen saturation levels whilst performing active cycle of breathing techniques, but not with autogenic drainage. Seven of the eight included studies measured forced vital capacity and three of the studies used mid peak expiratory flow (per cent predicted) as an outcome. Six studies reported sputum weight. Less commonly used outcomes included oxygen saturation levels, personal preference, hospital admissions, intravenous antibiotics and pseudomonas gene expression. There were no statistically significant differences found between any of the techniques used with respect to the outcomes measured except when autogenic drainage was described as being the preferred technique of the participants in one study over postural drainage and percussion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Autogenic drainage is a challenging technique that requires commitment from the individual. As such, this intervention merits systematic review to ensure its effectiveness for people with cystic fibrosis, particularly in an era where treatment options are changing rapidly. From the studies assessed, autogenic drainage was not found to be superior to any other form of airway clearance technique. Larger studies are required to better evaluate autogenic drainage in comparison to other airway clearance techniques in view of the relatively small number of participants in this review and the complex study designs. The studies recruited a range of participants and were not powered to assess non-inferiority. The varied length and design of the studies made the analysis of pooled data challenging.
Authors: Fernanda Maria Vendrusculo; Zoe Johnstone; Elaine Dhouieb; Márcio V F Donadio; Steven Cunningham; Donald S Urquhart Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: Alexandra L Quittner; Avani C Modi; Claire Wainwright; Kelly Otto; Jean Kirihara; A Bruce Montgomery Journal: Chest Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 9.410