Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
LetterCorrespondence

Evidence-Based Medicine Analysis of Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices

John R Bach, Michael Chiou, Louis R Saporito and Antonio M Esquinas
Respiratory Care May 2017, 62 (5) 643; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.05535
John R Bach
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Rutgers New Jersey Medical School Newark, New Jersey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Chiou
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Rutgers New Jersey Medical School Newark, New Jersey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Louis R Saporito
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Rutgers New Jersey Medical School Newark, New Jersey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Antonio M Esquinas
Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos Hospital Morales Meseguer Murcia, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

To the Editor:

Evidence-based medicine has become the accepted standard1 for validating treatments. However, although evidence-based medicine purports to consider the best available evidence, whether that be randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials or not, treatments not justified by randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials are largely denigrated, as in the recent paper by Auger et al.2 Most importantly, however, evidence-based medicine grounded in randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials is irrelevant when the intervention takes the place of a life-preserving function or vital organ and use of a placebo would result in certain morbidity or death. This would be the case by withdrawing continuous noninvasive ventilatory support from patients who have little to no measurable vital capacity3,4 or when pulmonary morbidity is otherwise inevitable by not clearing congested airways due to ineffective cough flows.5 Remarkably, this stark limitation of randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials has been ignored. For example, for renal failure, no placebo control is possible for dialysis or organ transplantation, nor is one possible for parachutes that essentially substitute for wings.6 Anyone with profuse airway secretions who cannot generate effective cough flows will develop acute respiratory failure and, if intubated, will fail extubation. Whereas controlled studies can compare different methods of augmenting cough flows, those with placebo controls (augmenting vs nothing) cannot be ethically subject to meta-analysis for high-quality randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials.

In 2011, we reported 101 continuous noninvasive ventilatory support-dependent subjects with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. They had “… a mean [vital capacity] 176 ± 102 mL, or 3% of predicted normal, which is not compatible with survival without continuous ventilator support … [and] 31 consecutive intubated Duchenne muscular dystrophy subjects who failed extubation at other institutions and/or failed ventilator weaning parameters and spontaneous breathing trials were successfully extubated …” to continuous noninvasive ventilatory support thanks, in large part, to mechanical insufflation-exsufflation, despite vital capacities as low as 80 mL.5 In the paper by Auger et al,2 the authors did not even consider the study worth citing, although it is certain that our continuous noninvasive ventilatory support-dependent subjects with respiratory infections could not possibly have survived without a tracheostomy tube without the effective airway clearance by mechanical insufflation-exsufflation.

Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials are certainly necessary to demonstrate minor evidence-based medicine-supported improvements on major life-preserving breakthroughs, but they cannot be used when those breakthrough interventions substitute for critical life-preserving functions, as does mechanical insufflation-exsufflation for any population with inadequate strength to clear airways by coughing. It must also be pointed out that in all of the controlled studies cited by Auger et al,2 mechanical insufflation-exsufflation was used at grossly inadequate pressures, since the 40 cm H2O of currently available devices is not equivalent to the 40 mm Hg pressures at which mechanical insufflation-exsufflation was studied and used effectively in the 1950s.3

Footnotes

  • The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

  • Copyright © 2017 by Daedalus Enterprises

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Avins AL,
    2. Cherkin DC,
    3. Sherman KJ,
    4. Goldberg H,
    5. Pressman A
    . Should we reconsider the routine use of placebo controls in clinical research? Trials 2012;13:44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Auger C,
    2. Hernando V,
    3. Galmiche H
    . Use of mechanical insufflation-exsufflation devices for airway clearance in subjects with neuromuscular disease. Respir Care 2017;62(2):236–245.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Bach JR,
    2. Gonçalves MR,
    3. Hamdani I,
    4. Winck JC
    . Extubation of unweanable patients with neuromuscular weakness: a new management paradigm. Chest 2010;137(5):1033–1039.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Bach JR,
    2. Sinquee DM,
    3. Saporito LR,
    4. Botticello AL
    . Efficacy of mechanical insufflation-exsufflation in extubating unweanable subjects with restrictive pulmonary disorders. Respir Care 2015;60(4):477–483.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Bach JR,
    2. Martinez D
    . Duchenne muscular dystrophy: prolongation of survival by noninvasive interventions. Respir Care 2011;56(6):744–750.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Smith GCS,
    2. Pell JP
    . Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2003;327(7429):1459–1461.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 62 (5)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 62, Issue 5
1 May 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author

 

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Evidence-Based Medicine Analysis of Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Evidence-Based Medicine Analysis of Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices
John R Bach, Michael Chiou, Louis R Saporito, Antonio M Esquinas
Respiratory Care May 2017, 62 (5) 643; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.05535

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Evidence-Based Medicine Analysis of Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Devices
John R Bach, Michael Chiou, Louis R Saporito, Antonio M Esquinas
Respiratory Care May 2017, 62 (5) 643; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.05535
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Reprints/Permissions

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire