Skip to content

Expiratory Rib Cage Compression in Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Expiratory Rib Cage Compression Does Not Improve Secretion Clearance and Respiratory Mechanics in Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01525121
Enrollment
20
Registered
2012-02-02
Start date
2008-07-31
Completion date
2009-06-30
Last updated
2012-02-02

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Pulmonary Infection

Keywords

mechanical ventilation, chest physiotherapy, critical care, pneumonia, Mechanically ventilated patients with pulmonary infection.

Brief summary

This is a randomized crossover study, designed to evaluate if the manual expiratory rib cage compression technique improves respiratory mechanics and is effective in secretion removal in mechanically ventilated patients.

Detailed description

Chest physiotherapy is an essential component of the multidisciplinary approach in critical care settings. In this context, a number of devices and manual techniques have been used to remove pulmonary secretions and re-expand collapsed areas. This study was designed to evaluate whether manual rib cage compression improves airway clearance and respiratory mechanics in mechanically ventilated patients. In a randomized crossover trial, 20 mechanically ventilated patients underwent thoracic manual compression and control intervention (normal ventilation) at the same day. The main outcomes were sputum production and the changes in respiratory mechanics.

Interventions

The therapist hands were positioned on the lower ribs, and the force was applied every two breaths only during the expiration, synchronizing the maneuver rate with the patient's respiratory rate. Then, the patients underwent a suctioning procedure, and a hyperinflation maneuver consisting of a 10 minutes period under pressure support ventilation of 35 cmH2O was done. In control intervention instead of the compressive maneuver the patients were kept on normal ventilation.

Sponsors

Centro Universitário Augusto Motta
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
19 Years to 90 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* patients under mechanical ventilation * diagnosis of pulmonary infection * hypersecretive (defined as the interval between tracheal suctioning \< 2 hours)

Exclusion criteria

* haemodynamic instability (defined by heart rate \> 130 bpm and mean arterial pressure \< 60 mmHg) * use of vasopressor drugs * absence of respiratory drive * acute bronchospasm * acute respiratory distress syndrome * atelectasis (identified by an independent radiologist that was not participating in the study) * untreated pneumothorax * lung haemorrhage.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Sputum Volume (mL)Day 1

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Respiratory MechanicsDay 1Static and effective compliance of the respiratory system Total resistance of the respiratory system

Countries

Brazil

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 10, 2026