Comparative study between noninvasive ventilation with continuous positive airway pressure mask versus stacked breathing on chest expansion and pulmonary function in patients with pneumonia
Abstract
Background: Majority of patients with pneumonia fail the treatment by the noninvasive ventilation (NIV), not because of its low efficacy for maintaining upper airway patency but because of intolerance. The current study was designed to compare the effectiveness of stacked breathing exercise (SBE) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) mask on the chest expansion and pulmonary functions for patients with pneumonia.
Methodology: A randomized controlled experimental study was conducted in chest ICU in Assiut University Hospital in Egypt and registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04576221 identifier). Sixty patients with pneumonia were selected by convenience sampling and randomly assigned into two groups (30 patients each), the patients in SB group received SBE and were instructed to perform the exercise 3 times per day for one week; and the CPAP group received NIV with using CPAP mask. Chest expansion and pulmonary functions were assessed before and after the exercise.
Results: There were significant differences in chest expansion and pulmonary functions between the SB and CPAP groups after exercise in the first day, after 3 days and on the last day of the study (p=0.018, < 0.001 and < 0.001) respectively. Chest expansion and pulmonary functions in the SB group was much improved than those in the CPAP group.
Conclusions: Implementing SB exercise had a significant effect on improving chest expansion and pulmonary functions in patients with pneumonia than NIV with CPAP mask.
Key words: Chest expansion; CPAP mask; Pneumonia; Pulmonary Function; Stacked breathing
Citation: Ahmed AT, Abou Galalah AA, Mahgoub AA, Mahran GS. Comparative study between noninvasive ventilation with continuous positive airway pressure mask versus stacked breathing on chest expansion and pulmonary function in patients with pneumonia. Anaesth. pain intensive care 2021;25(2):176-184. DOI: 10.35975/apic.v25i2.1470
Received: 2 November 2020, Reviewed: 2 December 2020, Accepted: 24 March 2021