AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightOverall, there was an improvement in the physicalsub-scale of the Short Form (SF)-36 Quality of Life Questionnaire scores of 36 patients who completed the study (p=0.001).
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Özet
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy of an oscillating positive expiratory device and the active cycle ofbreathing techniques (ACBT) in patients with bronchiectasis.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A home-based study that lasted for 4 weeks was designed to compare the oscillating physiotherapy deviceFlutter® and the ACBT in 40 patients, who were randomly assigned into two groups containing 20 patients each. The effect of the twomethods of physiotherapy on sputum production, pulmonary functions, and the quality of life was compared.RESULTS: The results of the present study indicate that both the methods were associated with a reduced number of patients complainingof cough and fatigue and increased sputum production (p=0.000, p=0.004, and p=0.002, respectively). In addition, statisticallysignificant reductions were determined by the Medical Research Council and Borg Dyspnea scores (p=0.001 and 0.002, respectively).The Flutter® device caused a more significant effect on the perception of dyspnea. Overall, there was an improvement in the physicalsub-scale of the Short Form (SF)-36 Quality of Life Questionnaire scores of 36 patients who completed the study (p=0.001). During thephysiotherapy period, no changes in pulmonary functions were observed. Exacerbations were recorded in 3 patients in the ACBT groupand in 1 patient in the Flutter® group.CONCLUSION: The Flutter® device and ACBT represent effective home-based physiotherapeutic methods. The Flutter® device appearsto be more effective with regard to sputum production.