Open Access

Outcome measures for manual lung hyperinflation: not there yet!

Critical Care201216:457

DOI: 10.1186/cc11496

Published: 8 November 2012

The recent systematic review by Paulus and colleagues provides an insight into manual lung hyperinflation (MHI) [1], but deserves further comment.

MHI research has generally focused on surrogate measures of secretion clearance, such as lung/thorax compliance [2]. Investigation into the effect of MHI on airway secretion clearance is warranted to elucidate the mechanistic and hence potential therapeutic role.

Volpe and colleagues [3] and Li Bassi and colleagues [4] have reported mechanical ventilation flow-bias thresholds that can move airway secretions both towards (expel) and away (embed) from the mechanical ventilator. These measurement methods may be useful to identify the optimal MHI technique [4]. Van Aswegen and colleagues recently demonstrated that MHI with a positive end-expiratory pressure of 7.5 cmH2O in a supine position resulted in a preferential airflow distribution (using technetium-99m) to the right lung as compared with the left lung [5]. Hence, for left lung collapse the combination of patient positioning (for example, lying on the right side) with MHI may both optimise lung recruitment and/or secretion clearance.

Owing to the requirement for airway disconnection, Paulus and colleagues allude to the potential for MHI to result in airway contamination and cause ventilator-associated pneumonia [1]. Along similar lines, however, closed suction has often been advocated as a means to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (also by preventing circuit disconnection). A recent meta-analysis on closed versus open suction demonstrated no changes in the rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia [6], but closed suction was associated with increased duration of mechanical ventilation and airway contamination. The optimal MHI technique and outcome measures require identification.



manual lung hyperinflation.


Authors’ Affiliations

Physiotherapy Department, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, Kings Health Partners


  1. Paulus F, Binnekade JM, Vroom MB, Schultz MJ: Benefits and risks of manual hyperinflation in intubated and mechanically ventilated intensive care unit-patients: a systematic review. Crit Care 2012, 16: R145. 10.1186/cc11457PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Hodgson C, Denehy L, Ntoumenopoulos G, Santamaria J, Carroll S: An investigation of the early effects of manual lung hyperinflation in critically ill patients. Anaesth Intensive Care 2000, 28: 255-261.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Volpe MS, Adams AB, Amato MB, Marini JJ: Ventilation patterns influence airway secretion movement. Respir Care 2008, 53: 1287-1294.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Li Bassi G, Saucedo L, Marti JD, Rigol M, Esperatti M, Luque N, Ferrer M, Gabarrus A, Fernandez L, Kolobow T, Torres A: Effects of duty cycle and positive end-expiratory pressure on mucus clearance during mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med 2012, 40: 895-902. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318236efb5View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Van Aswegen H, Van Aswegen A, Du Raan H, Du Toit R, Spruyt M, Nel R, Maleka M: Airflow distribution with manual hyperinflation as assessed through gamma camera imaging: a crossover randomised trial. Physiotherapy 2012. []Google Scholar
  6. Siempos I, Vardakas K, Falagas W: Closed tracheal suction systems for prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Br J Anaesth 2008, 100: 299-306. 10.1093/bja/aem403View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar


© BioMed Central Ltd 2012