The efficacy of inhaled hypertonic saline for bronchiectasis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies - 10/12/20

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.08.042

Bingfeng Xie ^a , Ping Liu ^b , Qi Wu ^d,^{^⁎} , Weineng Xiang ^c,^{^⁎}
^a Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The First Hospital of Changsha, Hunan, China
^b Department of Respiratory Medicine, The First Hospital of Changsha, Hunan, China
^c Department of Spin Surgery, The First Hospital of Changsha, Hunan, China
^d Department of Emergency, The First Hospital of Changsha, Hunan, China

^⁎Corresponding authors at: No. 1 Yi Xue Yuan Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, China, 400016.No. 1 Yi Xue Yuan RoadYuzhong DistrictChongqing400016China

Abstract

Introduction

The efficacy of inhaled hypertonic saline for bronchiectasis remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of inhaled hypertonic saline versus 0.9% isotonic saline for the treatment of bronchiectasis.

Methods

We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through April 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of inhaled hypertonic saline versus 0.9% isotonic saline for the treatment of bronchiectasis. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.

Results

Four RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group for bronchiectasis, inhaled hypertonic saline had no obvious influence on forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1, SMD = 0.12; 95% CI = -0.06 to 0.30; P = .18), forced vital capacity (FVC, SMD = 0.10; 95% CI = -0.09 to 0.28; P = .30), sputum expectorated (SMD = -0.03; 95% CI = -2.73 to 2.68; P = .99) or Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) score (SMD = -0.15; 95% CI = -0.89 to 0.58; P = .68).

Conclusions

Inhaled hypertonic saline and 0.9% isotonic saline show similar efficacy for bronchiectasis.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Hypertonic saline, Isotonic saline, Bronchiectasis, Randomized controlled trials

Plan

Introduction

Materials and methods

Literature search and selection criteria

Data extraction and outcome measures

Quality assessment in individual studies

Statistical analysis

Results

Literature search, study characteristics and quality assessment

Primary outcome: FEV1

Compliance with ethical standards

Research involving human participants and/or animals

Export

Vol 38 - N° 12

P. 2713-2717 - décembre 2020 Retour au numéro

Article précédent

A review of pre-hospital case series among those with time to double external defibrillation and neurologic outcomes
Dennis Miraglia, Wilfredo Alonso

| Article suivant

Intravenous thiamine for septic shock: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Xiangfeng Qian, Zhe Zhang, Feng Li, Longchuan Wu

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

connectez-vous ou créez un compte

The efficacy of inhaled hypertonic saline for bronchiectasis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies - 10/12/20

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Plan

Export citations

Fichier

Contenu

Accès rapides

Mon compte

Aide & support

Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL