Search

Despite recommendations for regular lung volume recruitment (LVR) use in clinical practice guidelines for children with neuromuscular disease, adherence to LVR is poor. We aimed to describe the experience of LVR by boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), their families, and healthcare providers (HCPs), as well as to identify the barriers and facilitators to LVR use.This multicenter, qualitative study evaluated boys with DMD (n = 11) who used twice-daily LVR as part of a randomized controlled trial, as well as their parents (n = 11), and HCPs involved in the clinical use of LVR (n = 9). Semistructured interviews were conducted to identify participants' understanding of LVR therapy and their beliefs, barriers and facilitators to its use. Thematic analysis was conducted using an inductive approach. A subanalysis compared adherent and nonadherent children.Seven themes were identified related to participants' beliefs and experiences with LVR: emotional impact, adaptation to LVR, perceived benefits of LVR, routine, family engagement, clinical resources, and equipment-related factors. Strategies to improve adherence were also identified, including education, reinforcement and demonstration of LVR benefit, as well as clinician support. There were no thematic differences between adherent and nonadherent children.Despite the benefits of LVR and positive experiences with it by many families, there remain barriers to adherence to treatment. HCPs need to balance the need for early introduction to give families time to adapt to LVR while ensuring that the benefit of LVR outweighs the burden. Clinician support is important for family engagement.

BackgroundImpaired cough results in airway secretion retention, atelectasis and pneumonia in individuals with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Lung volume recruitment (LVR) stacks breaths to inflate the lungs to greater volumes than spontaneous effort. LVR is recommended in DMD clinical care guidelines but is not well studied. We aimed to determine whether twice-daily LVR, compared with standard of care alone, attenuates the decline in FVC at 2 years in boys with DMD.MethodsIn this multicentre, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial, boys with DMD, aged 6–16 years with FVC >30% predicted, were randomised to receive conventional treatment or conventional treatment plus manual LVR twice daily for 2 years. The primary outcome was FVC % predicted at 2 years, adjusted for baseline FVC % predicted, age and ambulatory status. Secondary outcomes included change in chest wall distensibility (maximal insufflation capacity minus FVC) and peak cough flow.ResultsSixty-six boys (36 in LVR group, 30 in control) were evaluated (median age (IQR): 11.5 years (9.5–13.5), median baseline FVC (IQR): 85% predicted (73–96)). Adjusted mean difference in FVC between groups at 2 years was 1.9% predicted (95% CI −6.9% to 10.7%; p=0.68) in the direction of treatment benefit. We found no differences in secondary outcomes.ConclusionThere was no difference in decline in FVC % predicted with use of twice-daily LVR for boys with DMD and relatively normal lung function. The burden associated with routine LVR may outweigh the benefit. Benefits of LVR to maintain lung health in boys with worse baseline lung function still need to be clarified.Trial registration numberNCT01999075.