Skip to content

Comparison of Two Respiratory Physiotherapy Treatments in Postcovid-19 Patients.

Comparison of Two Respiratory Physiotherapy Treatments in Postcovid-19 Patients. Randomiced Clinical Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05435443
Enrollment
200
Registered
2022-06-28
Start date
2022-07-01
Completion date
2022-08-24
Last updated
2023-03-27

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

Conditions

COVID-19, Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Brief summary

To test the effectiveness of a respiratory physiotherapy treatment plan in patients who have passed COVID-19, comparing two randomized groups, for the performance of different respiratory musculature training protocols. To objectify the results data obtained by means of ultrasound measurements and spirometry, observing the differences obtained at the beginning and end of the study, verifying the effectiveness of the PowerBreathe® ,Therosold PEP® tools and the effectiveness of diaphragmatic, abdominal and expiratory exercises.

Interventions

DEVICEPowerBreathe and PEP Therosold tools

Initially, the following data were collected from each subject in addition to basic epidemiological data: M-mode diaphragmatic excursion measurements, both in inspiration and expiration via ultrasound; spirometry is also carried out, obtaining values of forced vital capacity (FVC or FVC), forced expiratory volume (FEV), portion of FVC (FEV1/FVC), peak expiratory flow (PEF), mean expiratory flow, peak inspiratory pressure (PIM) and peak expiratory pressure (PEM). A 30-day treatment plan was carried out in which one group (Tool Group) had to perform 5 minutes of exercise with each tool, alternating with one minute of rest between each minute of exercise, starting with the Therosold PEP® and then the PowerBreathe®. The resistances applied to the devices were marked according to the specific assessment of each subject, in relation to the spirometric values of PIM and PEM.

Sponsors

Universidad Católica de Ávila
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Patients diagnosed with Covid and suffering from functional limitations in the respiratory system. * Patients over 18 years of age. * Patients under 65 years of age. * Patientes with cognitive ability to perform spirometry. * Patients with the physical capacity to perform spirometry

Exclusion criteria

* \- Patients diagnosed with Covid and without functional limitations in the respiratory system. * Patients under 18 years of age. * Patients over 65 years of age. * Patients without cognitive capacity to perform spirometry. * Patients without physical capacity to perform spirometry.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
peak inspiratory pressure (PIM)1 month0 miminum ,200 maximum
peak expiratory pressure1 month0 miminum ,200 maximum
forced vital capacity1 month0 miminum ,200 maximum

Countries

Spain

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026