Appropriateness of respiratory physiotherapy positioning for acute lobar collapse

Louise Hansell; Maree Milross; George Ntoumenopoulos

doi:10.1016/j.aucc.2024.08.010

Appropriateness of respiratory physiotherapy positioning for acute lobar collapse

Aust Crit Care. 2024 Sep 19:S1036-7314(24)00252-2. doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2024.08.010. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Louise Hansell¹, Maree Milross², George Ntoumenopoulos³

Affiliations

¹ Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Physiotherapy Department, Royal North Shore Hospital, Northern Sydney Local Health District, St Leonards, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: Louise.Hansell@health.nsw.gov.au.
² Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: Maree.Milross@sydney.edu.au.
³ Physiotherapy Department, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: georgentou@yahoo.com.

PMID: 39304404
DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2024.08.010

Abstract

Background: Positioning is an important physiotherapy treatment modality for the management of aeration loss associated with acute lobar atelectasis (ALA). Physiotherapists typically rely on lung auscultation and interpretation of chest x-ray (CXR) to inform treatment selection. These tools lack diagnostic accuracy, which could limit the ability of a physiotherapist to locate ALA and select an appropriate treatment position.

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to determine the number of clinical physiotherapist treatment positions found to be in agreement with lung ultrasound (LUS)-identified aeration loss and to determine the diagnostic accuracy of CXR and lung auscultation against LUS as the reference standard for locating aeration loss in mechanically ventilated patients with ALA.

Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted in a tertiary teaching hospital in Sydney. Mechanically ventilated adult patients in critical care with ALA were included. Physiotherapist-selected positions were compared against location of aeration loss based on LUS results to determine appropriateness. Location of aeration loss as identified by CXR results and lung auscultation was compared against LUS as the reference standard to determine diagnostic accuracy.

Results: Forty-three participants were included in this study. Four out of 43 patients (9.3%) were positioned appropriately. The rate of true positives for CXR and auscultation in locating aeration loss were highest in the lower lobes. Lung auscultation had higher sensitivities (16.7%-97.4%) than CXR (0%-59.5%) in a majority of lobes when detecting location of aeration loss. CXR had higher specificities (16.7%-100%) than lung auscultation (0%-64.9%) in a majority of lobes when detecting location of aeration loss.

Conclusions: Physiotherapists did not deliver appropriate positioning in a majority of cases. Overall, the diagnostic accuracy of lung auscultation and CXR in detecting location of ALA was low. Correctly locating lung aeration loss is imperative to ensure appropriate respiratory physiotherapy positions are selected. Physiotherapists should consider additional assessment tools such as LUS to increase their diagnostic ability.

Keywords: Intensive care; Lung ultrasound; Point of care ultrasound; Respiratory physiotherapy.