Skip to main content

Table 1 Studies comparing manual hyperinflation (MH) with standard care

From: Benefits and risks of manual hyperinflation in intubated and mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients: a systematic review

Author [ref]

Year

Subjects

N

Study design

Intervention

Reported aspects of the MH maneuver

Main results

Hodgson et al. [26]

2000

Unselected intensive care unit patients

18

Randomized crossover trial

MH + endotracheal suction vs. standard care

Volume: -

Inspiration speed: -

Pause: +

Expiration speed: ±

MH increased pulmonary compliance but did not affect P/F; MH increased clearance of airway secretions

Patman et al. [22]

2000

Postcardiac surgery patients

94

Randomized controlled trial

MH + endotracheal suction vs. standard care

Volume: -

Inspiration speed: -

Pause: +

Expiration speed: -

MH increased pulmonary compliance and P/F

Barker et al. [20]

2002

Patients with acute lung injury

17

Randomized controlled trial

MH + endotracheal suction + position changes of patient vs. position changes only

Volume: +

Inspiration speed: -

Pause : +

Expiration speed: -

MH affected neither pulmonary compliance nor P/F

Choi et al. [25]

2005

Patients with pneumonia

15

Randomized crossover trial

MH + endotracheal suction vs. standard care

Volume: ±

Inspiration speed: -

Pause: +

Expiration speed: +

MH improved pulmonary compliance

Maa et al. [5]

2006

Patients with atelectasis

23

Randomized controlled trial

MH + endotracheal suction vs. standard care

Volume: -

Inspiration speed: +

Pause: +

Expiration speed: ±

MH affected neither P/F nor clearance of airway secretions

Blattner et al. [21]

2008

Postcardiac surgery patients

55

Randomized controlled trial

MH + endotracheal suction vs. standard care

Volume: -

Inspiration speed: -

Pause: ±

Expiration speed: -

MH improved pulmonary compliance and PaO2 and reduced duration of MV

Patman et al. [23]

2009

Brain-injury patients

144

Randomized controlled trial

MH + endotracheal suction and side lying vs. standard care

Volume: ±

Inspiration speed: ±

Pause: +

Expiration speed: ±

MH affected neither duration of MV and length of stay in intensive care unit, nor the incidence of pneumonia

Paulus et al. [24]

2011

Postcardiac surgery patients

100

Randomized controlled trial

MH + endotracheal suction vs. standard care

Volume: +

Inspiration speed: +

Pause: +

Expiration speed: +

MH did not affect pulse-oximeter oxygen saturation

  1. Reported aspects of the MH maneuver: volume, whether larger than normal breaths were used; inspiration speed, whether a low inspiratory flow was used; pause, whether pauses were used; expiration speed, whether rapid expiratory flows were used (+, mentioned; -, not mentioned; ±, uncertain)