4.3 Article

Spanish Guidelines on Treatment of Bronchiectasis in Adults

Journal

ARCHIVOS DE BRONCONEUMOLOGIA
Volume 54, Issue 2, Pages 88-98

Publisher

ELSEVIER ESPANA SLU
DOI: 10.1016/j.arbres.2017.07.016

Keywords

Bronchiectasis; Chronic bronchial infection; Computed tomography; Inhaled antibiotics; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; FACED; E-FACED; Exacerbations; Macrolides; Respiratory physiotherapy; Mucolytics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In 2008, the Spanish Society of Pulmonology (SEPAR) published the first guidelines in the world on the diagnosis and treatment of bronchiectasis. Almost 10 years later, considerable scientific advances have been made in both the treatment and the evaluation and diagnosis of this disease, and the original guidelines have been updated to include the latest therapies available for bronchiectasis. These new recommendations have been drafted following a strict methodological process designed to ensure quality of content, and are linked to a large amount of online information that includes a wealth of references. The guidelines are focused on the treatment of bronchiectasis from both a multidisciplinary perspective, including specialty areas and the different healthcare levels involved, and a multidimensional perspective, including a comprehensive overview of the specific aspects of the disease. A series of recommendations have been drawn up, based on an in-depth review of the evidence for treatment of the underlying etiology, the bronchial infection in its different forms of presentation using existing therapies, bronchial inflammation, and airflow obstruction. Nutritional aspects, management of secretions, muscle training, management of complications and comorbidities, infection prophylaxis, patient education, home care, surgery, exacerbations, and patient follow-up are addressed. (C) 2017 SEPAR. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.LU. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available