Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Controlling asthma by training of capnometry-assisted hypoventilation (CATCH) versus slow breathing: a randomized controlled trial
Ritz T, Rosenfield D, Steele AM, Millard MM, Meuret AE
Chest 2014 Nov;146(5):1237-1247
clinical trial
6/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

BACKGROUND: Hyperventilation has been associated with adverse effects on lung function, symptoms, and well-being in asthma. We examined whether raising end-tidal carbon-dioxide levels (PCO2), compared to slow breathing, was associated with improvements in asthma control, including peak-flow variability. METHOD: 120 asthma patients were randomly assigned to capnometry-assisted respiratory training (CART) for raising PCO2 or slowing respiratory rate (SLOW). Patients received five weekly sessions and completed twice-daily homework exercises over 4 weeks. Blinded assessments at baseline, posttreatment, 1-month and 6-months follow-up of asthma control, PCO2, and diurnal peak-flow variability were primary outcome measures. Additionally, we measured pulmonary function (spirometry, forced oscillation, exhaled nitric oxide, methacholine challenge), symptoms, quality of life, and bronchodilator use. Because the control group received an active treatment, we expected improvements in asthma control in both groups, but more pronounced benefits from CART. RESULTS: Improvements were seen in 17 of 21 clinical indices (81.0%) in both interventions, including the primary outcome variables asthma control (d = 0.81), peak-flow variability (d = 0.54), quality of life, bronchodilator use, lung function, and airway hyperreactivity. Most improvements were sustained across 6-month follow-up. Compared with slow breathing, CART showed greater increases in PCO2 (CART d = 1.45 versus SLOW d = 0.64) and greater reductions in respiratory impedance during treatment, less distress during methacholine challenge, and greater reduction in asthma symptoms at follow-up (ps < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Brief interventions aimed at raising PCO2 or slowing respiratory rate provide significant, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvements in asthma control. Raising PCO2 was associated with greater benefits in aspects of lung function and long-term symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00975273.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help