Tanto los pacientes del grupo de IPPB como los del grupo de TPEP mostraron una mejoría significativa en 2 de las 3 evaluaciones (MRC y CAT) en comparación con el grupo de control. Las variables de valoración secundarias fueron las pruebas de la función respiratoria, la gasometría arterial y los análisis hematológicos. Las variables de valoración principales fueron la puntuación de la escala o cuestionario relativo a la disnea (escala del MRC) la de disnea, tos y esputo (BCSS) y la de calidad de vida (test de evaluación de la EPOC) (CAT). Un total de 45 pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente a los 3 grupos siguientes: un grupo fue tratado con IPPB, otro fue tratado con TPEP y un tercer grupo recibió únicamente tratamiento farmacológico (grupo de control). Hemos evaluado la hipótesis de que la adición de la TPEP o la IPPB a un tratamiento farmacológico estándar pueda aportar un beneficio clínico adicional respecto al tratamiento farmacológico solo en los pacientes con EPOC grave. Los resultados que respaldan el uso y la efectividad de los dispositivos de presión espiratoria positiva en pacientes con enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva (EPOC) continúan siendo objeto de controversia. IPPB demonstrated a greater effectiveness in improving dyspnoea and quality of life tools (MRC, CAT) than TPEP. ![]() The two techniques (IPPB and TPEP) improve significantly dyspnoea, quality of life tools and lung function in patients with severe COPD. Also TPEP increases FVC and FEV1 (less than IPPB), and MEP, while decreasing total lung capacity and residual volume. The difference of action of the two techniques is evident in the results of pulmonary function testing: IPPB increases FVC, FEV1, and MIP this reflects its capacity to increase lung volume. However, in the group comparison analysis for the same variables between the IPPB group and the TPEP group, we observed a significant improvement in the IPPB group ( P≤.05 for MRC and P≤.01 for CAT). Patients in both the IPPB group and the TPEP group showed a significant improvement in two of three tests (MRC, CAT) compared to the control group. Secondary outcome measures were respiratory function testing, arterial blood gas analysis and haematological examinations. Primary outcome measures included the measurement of scale, or questionnaire concerning dyspnoea (MRC scale) dyspnoea, cough, and sputum (BCSS) and quality of life (COPD assessment test) (CAT). Methodsįorty-five patients were randomised in three groups: a group was treated with IPPB, a group was treated with TPEP and a group with pharmacological therapy alone (control group). We have tested the hypothesis that adding TPEP or IPPB to standard pharmacological therapy may provide additional clinical benefit over, pharmacological therapy only in patients with severe COPD. Results supporting the use and the effectiveness of positive expiratory, pressure devices in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients are still controversial. The Journal expresses the voice of the Spanish Respiratory Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR) as well as that of other scientific societies such as the Latin American Thoracic Society (ALAT) and the Iberian American Association of Thoracic Surgery (AICT).Īuthors are also welcome to submit their articles to the Journal's open access companion title, Open Respiratory Archives. Furthermore, the Journal is also present in Twitter and Facebook. ![]() Manuscripts will be submitted electronically using the following web site:, link which is also accessible through the main web page of Archivos de Bronconeumologia.Īccess to any published article, is possible through the Journal's web page as well as from PubMed, Science Direct, and other international databases. The Journal is published monthly in English. It is a monthly Journal that publishes a total of 12 issues and a few supplements, which contain articles belonging to the different sections.Īll the manuscripts received in the Journal are evaluated by the Editors and sent to expert peer-review while handled by the Editor and/or an Associate Editor from the team. ![]() Other types of articles such as reviews, editorials, a few special articles of interest to the society and the editorial board, scientific letters, letters to the Editor, and clinical images are also published in the Journal. Archivos de Bronconeumologia is a scientific journal that preferentially publishes prospective original research articles whose content is based upon results dealing with several aspects of respiratory diseases such as epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinics, surgery, and basic investigation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |