IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0191787.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of manual hyperinflation, clinical practice versus expert recommendation, on displacement of mucus simulant: A laboratory study

Author

Listed:
  • Marcia S Volpe
  • Juliane M Naves
  • Gabriel G Ribeiro
  • Gualberto Ruas
  • Mauro R Tucci

Abstract

Introduction: Manual hyperinflation (MH), a maneuver applied in mechanically ventilated patients to facilitate secretion removal, has large variation in its performance. Effectiveness of MH is usually evaluated by its capacity to generate an expiratory flow bias. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of MH—and its resulting flow bias—applied according to clinical practice versus according to expert recommendation on mucus movement in a lung model simulating a mechanically ventilated patient. Methods: Twelve physiotherapists were asked to apply MH, using a self-inflating manual resuscitator, to a test lung as if to remove secretions under two conditions: according to their usual clinical practice (pre-instruction phase) and after verbal instruction to perform MH according to expert recommendation was given (post-instruction phase). Mucus simulant movement was measured with a photodensitometric technique. Peak inspiratory flow (PIF), peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), inspiratory time (TINSP), tidal volume (VT) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) were measured continuously. Results: It was found that MH performed post-instruction delivered a smaller VT (643.1 ± 57.8 ml) at a lower PIP (15.0 ± 1.5 cmH2O), lower PIF (38.0 ± 9.6 L/min), longer TINSP (1.84 ±0.54 s) and lower PEF (65.4 ± 6.7L/min) compared to MH pre-instruction. In the pre-instruction phase, MH resulted in a mean PIF/PEF ratio of 1.73 ± 0.38 and mean PEF-PIF difference of -54.6 ± 28.3 L/min, both out of the range for secretion removal. In the post-instruction phase both indexes were in the adequate range. Consequently, the mucus simulant was moved outward when MH was applied according to expert recommendation and towards the test lung when it was applied according to clinical practice. Conclusions: Performance of MH during clinical practice with PIF higher than PEF was ineffective to clear secretion in a lung model simulating a mechanically ventilated patient. In order to remove secretion, MH should result in an adequate expiratory flow bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcia S Volpe & Juliane M Naves & Gabriel G Ribeiro & Gualberto Ruas & Mauro R Tucci, 2018. "Effects of manual hyperinflation, clinical practice versus expert recommendation, on displacement of mucus simulant: A laboratory study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-11, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0191787
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191787
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191787
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191787&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0191787?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0191787. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.