Nebulized hypertonic saline and positive expiratory pressure device use in patients with bronchiectasis: Analysis from the United States Bronchiectasis and NTM research registry

• Published in: Respiratory medicine and research Vol. 86; p. 101107
• Main Authors: Basavaraj, Ashwin, Brunton, Amanda E., Choate, Radmila, Barker, Alan, Jakharia, Kunal, Richards, Christopher, Swenson, Colin, Aksamit, Timothy R., Metersky, Mark L.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: France Elsevier Masson SAS 01.11.2024
• Subjects: Airway clearance; Bronchiectasis; Hypertonic saline; Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis; Non-tuberculous mycobacteria; BRR; NTM; Bronchiectasis; HS; L; Airway clearance; Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis; FVC; Non-tuberculous mycobacteria; Hypertonic saline; FEV1; PEP; AFB; ACTs; COPD
• ISSN: 2590-0412; 2590-0412
• DOI: 10.1016/j.resmer.2024.101107

Nebulized Hypertonic saline (HS) and positive expiratory pressure device (PEP) are often used in patients with bronchiectasis. We sought to describe the clinical characteristics in patients using HS and PEP, utilizing a large national database registry. Data from the US Bronchiectasis and NTM Research Registry were used in this study. Patients with a diagnosis of bronchiectasis were included. Eligible patients were assigned to one of four mutually exclusive groups: HS only, PEP only, HS & PEP, or no airway clearance or mucoactive agent. Descriptive statistics were computed for the overall study population and stratified by the four groups. One-way ANOVA and chi-square tests were used to test the difference in the means in continuous variables and the association between categorical variables (respectively) across the four groups. A total of 2195 patients were included. Of those with bronchiectasis and a productive cough, a greater number of patients utilized HS only vs PEP only (17.5 % vs 9.1 %, p < 0.001). Similar association was found in those with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (22.3 % HS only vs 6.5 % PEP only, p < 0.001). There was a higher number of patients who used HS and PEP therapy in combination vs PEP therapy alone (25.0 % vs 9.1 %, p = 0.002), in those with a productive cough. In patients with bronchiectasis and a productive cough or Pseudomonas aeruginosa, HS is used more often than PEP alone. There is a need for further analysis to compare these two modalities and explore the factors influencing their utilization.