Evidence Hub

Investigating the effectiveness of combining high-frequency chest wall oscillation with bilevel positive airway pressure in pneumonia patients: a retrospective cohort study

T. Chao, Ya-chen Kao, Hui-Ling Liu, Sheng-Hsiang Lin, Chin-Wei Kuo

BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 2025

271 participants

Abstract

Pneumonia represents a significant global health burden with high morbidity and mortality rates, despite advances in therapeutic and preventive strategies. Airway clearance techniques (ACT), including High-Frequency Chest Wall Oscillation (HFCWO) and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), are critical in managing respiratory conditions. However, the combined effectiveness of BiPAP and HFCWO in treating adult pneumonia remains underexplored. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a college hospital in southern Taiwan, enrolling patients aged ≥ 18 years, admitted for pneumonia from January 2020 to December 2022, who received HFCWO therapy for ≥ 5 days in the ordinary ward. Exclusion criteria included prior mechanical ventilation before HFCWO initiation. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the effectiveness of the combined use of BiPAP and HFCWO. A total of 271 patients received HFCWO and were enrolled for analysis, including 163 patients who received both BiPAP and HFCWO. Patients receiving both BiPAP and HFCWO were associated with decreased frequency of sputum suction (OR: 2.91, 95% CI: 1.46–5.78, P = 0.002), and reduced oxygen need post-HFCWO (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.33–0.91, P = 0.021). However, there was no difference in hospital stay, respiratory failure, ICU admission, or hospital death between the groups. Additionally, there was no difference in these outcomes for patients who received HFCWO twice daily compared to those who…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 271 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free