Non-invasive mechanical ventilation as an adjunct to pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with bronchiectasis: a pathophysiological perspective.

A pathophysiology discussion, not a trial.

No patients, no original results. The authors themselves call the bronchiectasis evidence 'scarce' and say it rests on extrapolation from COPD.

What this paper is

This is a pathophysiological perspective article, not a clinical study. It explains how non-invasive ventilation (NIV) could theoretically reduce the work of breathing in bronchiectasis during pulmonary rehabilitation, and it cites findings from COPD trials to build a biological case. It enrolls no patients, reports no original data, and contains no methods or results of its own. The authors state plainly that no randomized trials in bronchiectasis exist and that the evidence is 'scarce' and based on 'physiological rationale and extrapolations from other obstructive diseases.' There is no finding here to change your practice on.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →