Abstract
ACT comprise PEP-Mask and ELTGOL (PE) commonly used in our clinical practice and a recently introduced device, Temporary PEP (T-PEP®, UNIKO®). The aim of this observational retrospective 4 yrs study is to give a first overview on possible effects and specific indications of T-PEP compared with PE. We re-evaluated data from 188 patients (113 males, mean 70±10 yrs) including 96 patients with RF (i.e. in LTOT and/or mechanical ventilation, MV), 97 COPD and 75 COPD and/or bronchiectasis patients, with or without exacerbation consecutively treated with ACT. 55 subjects were treated with T-PEP, 133 with PE. Demographic, clinical and physiological characteristics between ACT groups were similar. Repeated measures analysis of variance were used. After ACT, significant improvements in all physiological measures were found with no difference between groups: p<0,001 for FVC, FEV1, PEF, SaO2, paO2, PaO2/FiO2. Patients on LTOT showed that the need for O2 therapy decreased after ACT in T-PEP group (1.56±1.301 to 1.46±1.101 l/min – FiO2 0.265±0.048 to 0.260±0.041%) whereas increased in PE group (0.99±0.809 to 1.49±1.160 l/min – FiO2 0.242±0.028 to 0.273±0.088% p<0.029). Among patients not on MV, T-PEP-group showed a trend to an increase of PaO2/FiO2 (p=0.078). ACT can improve physiological parameters with no difference between T-PEP and PE. In the T-PEP group, the reduction on needs of O2 therapy in LTOT patients and the trend of an increase of PaO2/FiO2 in patients not in MV seem to indicate that further studies are needed to target differently ACT in patients with RF. Supported in part by MPR, Italy.
- © 2011 ERS
