Overview of reviews: Mechanical interventions for the treatment and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Authors

  • Karolina Lisy BSc (Hons) PhD,

    Corresponding author
    1. The Joanna Briggs Institute, The School of Translational Health Science, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
    2. The Cochrane Nursing Care Field, Cochrane Collaboration, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
    • Correspondence: Karolina Lisy, The Joanna Briggs Institute, The School of Translational Health Science, The University of Adelaide, 115 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia. Email: karolina.lisy@adelaide.edu.au

    Search for more papers by this author
  • Heath White BBiotech (Hons),

    1. The Joanna Briggs Institute, The School of Translational Health Science, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
    2. The Cochrane Nursing Care Field, Cochrane Collaboration, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Alan Pearson RN PhD FRCNA FAAG FRCN AM

    1. The Joanna Briggs Institute, The School of Translational Health Science, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
    2. The Cochrane Nursing Care Field, Cochrane Collaboration, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by a progressive and non-reversible airflow limitation and symptoms of breathlessness, sputum production and cough. COPD is the fourth most common cause of mortality worldwide and represents a significant social and economic burden. As such, effective strategies that might be employed to treat COPD and manage symptoms need to be investigated. This overview aimed to summarize the existing evidence available in the Cochrane Library regarding the use of mechanical interventions used for the treatment and management of COPD. Systematic reviews that included adult participants with diagnosed COPD who received a mechanical intervention were included. Five reviews were included, and due to the heterogeneity of these reviews, direct and indirect comparisons of the effects of the intervention were not possible. Instead, data of the effectiveness of each intervention were extracted and summarized in tables and discussed as a narrative summary. Interventions included non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV), positive airway pressure (PEP) devices and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES). Evidence regarding the effectiveness of NPPV was limited, and available data do not support the use of NPPV for patients with stable COPD. NPPV might, however, be of benefit as a weaning strategy for intubated patients and for patients experiencing respiratory failure; however, more research is required. Although PEP devices are considered as a safe airway clearance technique, data do not reveal a clear clinical benefit to their use. NMES is also regarded as safe for patients with COPD, and might also be beneficial in improving exercise tolerance and improving quality of life for patients with COPD.

Ancillary