4.0 Article

Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation Device Prescription for Outpatients With Tetraplegia

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPINAL CORD MEDICINE
Volume 33, Issue 2, Pages 128-134

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10790268.2010.11689687

Keywords

Spinal cord injuries; Tetraplegia; Pneumonia; Cough; Respiratory therapy

Funding

  1. Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [R49 CCR002570-19]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MIE) is an option for secretion mobilization in outpatients with spinal cord injury (SCI) who lack an effective cough and are at high risk for developing pneumonia. Objective: To describe characteristics of persons with SCI who received MIE devices for outpatient use and compare respiratory hospitalizations before and after MIE prescription. Design: Retrospective cohort study of all persons who were prescribed MIE devices for outpatient use during 2000 to 2006 by a Veterans Affairs SCI service. Results: We identified 40 patients with tetraplegia (4.5% of population followed by the SCI service) who were prescribed MIE devices. Of these, 30 (75%) had neurologic levels of C5 or rostral, and 33 (83%) had motor-complete injuries. For chronically injured patients who were prescribed MIE for home use, there was a nonsignificant reduction in respiratory hospitalization rates by 34% (0.314/y before MIE vs 0.208/y after MIE; P = 0.21). A posthoc subgroup analysis showed a significant decline in respiratory hospitalizations for patients with significant tobacco smoking histories. Conclusions: Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation was typically prescribed for people with motor-complete tetraplegia. Outpatient MIE usage may reduce respiratory hospitalizations in smokers with SCI. Further research of this alternative, noninvasive method is warranted in the outpatient SCI population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available