Introduction: The efficacy of inhaled hypertonic saline for bronchiectasis remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of inhaled hypertonic saline versus 0.9% isotonic saline for the treatment of bronchiectasis.
Methods: We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through April 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of inhaled hypertonic saline versus 0.9% isotonic saline for the treatment of bronchiectasis. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.
Results: Four RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group for bronchiectasis, inhaled hypertonic saline had no obvious influence on forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1, SMD = 0.12; 95% CI = -0.06 to 0.30; P = .18), forced vital capacity (FVC, SMD = 0.10; 95% CI = -0.09 to 0.28; P = .30), sputum expectorated (SMD = -0.03; 95% CI = -2.73 to 2.68; P = .99) or Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) score (SMD = -0.15; 95% CI = -0.89 to 0.58; P = .68).
Conclusions: Inhaled hypertonic saline and 0.9% isotonic saline show similar efficacy for bronchiectasis.
Keywords: Bronchiectasis; Hypertonic saline; Isotonic saline; Randomized controlled trials.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.