Evidence Hub

Acute lobar atelectasis: a prospective comparison of fiberoptic bronchoscopy and respiratory therapy

Marini JJ, Pierson DJ, Hudson LD

The American review of respiratory disease, 1979

31 participants

Abstract

To evaluate the usefulness of fiberoptic bronchoscopy for treatment of acute lobar atelectasis, 31 subjects were randomly allocated to fiberoptic bronchoscopy followed by respiratory therapy for 48 hours, or to respiratory therapy alone for the same period. No significant differences between groups with regard to restoration of volume loss were detected after the first treatment intervention, at 24 or at 48 hours (P greater than 0.20). Specifically, the mean percentage resolution of volume loss immediately after bronchoscopy (38 per cent) closely approximated that after the first respiratory therapy treatment in subjects who had not undergone bronchoscopy (37 per cent). An air bronchogram proved to be a predictor of delayed resolution for both groups. At 24 hours, 26 per cent of the air bronchograms demonstrated 83 per cent resolution (P less than 0.001). These results suggest that fiberoptic bronchoscopy does not add to respiratory therapy in the treatment of acute lobar atelectasis and that an air bronchogram predicts delayed resolution of collapse.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 31 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