STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
-
This systematic review will strictly follow the preferred reporting items and meta-analysis protocol guidelines for systematic reviews.
-
Multiple databases will be thoroughly searched, reference lists of original studies, and grey literature will be included to ensure a detailed review of the topic.
-
The quality of evidence on the effects of interventions will be reported using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to facilitate their application.
-
Due to the limited number of original studies or significant heterogeneity, meta-analyses may be affected.
-
We will only include articles in English.
Introduction
Tracheostomy is a common emergency procedure for critically ill patients and is a common measure to ensure safe management of the patient’s airway.1 For example, tracheotomy is required for respiratory failure or respiratory depression, upper airway obstruction or lower airway secretion retention caused for various reasons.2 The number of tracheostomies performed in intensive care units (ICUs) is increasing. Some recent studies have shown that approximately 29% of ICU patients undergo tracheostomy, while only 10% earlier.3 4 However, a prospective observational study showed that the tracheostomy rate was as high as 54.2% in surgical intensive care patients.5 Tracheostomy has many advantages over long-term intubation, such as ease of oral cleaning and care,6 greater patient tolerance, improved comfort, reduced need for sedation7 and faster removal from the ventilator.8 However, prolonged tracheostomy can disrupt airway integrity and cause adverse effects on patients. Due to changes in airway resistance, loss of subglottic air pressure, weakening of the effective cough reflex and closure of the vocal cords, patients experience dysfunctions in breathing, swallowing, speech and a sense of smell after tracheostomy, and their quality of life is also affected.1 It is reported that the incidence of aspiration after tracheostomy is as high as 59%, which severely affects normal swallowing function and further increases the risk of aspiration pneumonia.9 10 In addition, there is evidence that effective personal communication and participation in medical decision-making are affected by tracheostomy.11 A mixed study has shown that tracheostomy-induced voice loss significantly affects patients’ ability to express comfort needs and care.12 Communication disorders can increase patients’ negative emotions, such as anxiety, depression, fear and powerlessness,13 and reduce their quality of life.14
There are many rehabilitation strategies available to reduce problems after tracheostomy, among which the use of speaking valves as a simple and effective technology is widely used in developed countries. The speaking valve (also known as the speech valve) is a one-way ventilation valve that attaches to the outside opening of the tracheostomy tube and causes the respiratory system to form a closed loop. The working principle of the speaking valve is that the valve opens when the patient inhales, air flows through the tracheostomy tube and into the airway; it closes when the patient exhales, and the airflow is exhaled from the tracheal tube trachea through the vocal cords and larynx from the mouth and nose, helping the patient reconstruct the subglottic pressure.15 The speaking valve mainly uses its unique ventilation device to help patients restore normal positive end-expiratory pressure and promote oxygenation and ventilation.16 Previous studies have shown that speaking valves can increase tidal volume,17 and their use during ventilator deconditioning also promotes lung resuscitation.18 It can also reshape subglottic pressure through biohydrodynamic mechanisms to improve swallowing function and prevent leakage and aspiration.19 Han et al reported that the speaking valve can increase the velopharynx maximal pressure (VP-Max), prolong the upper oesophageal sphincter relaxation duration (UES-RD) and reduce the aspiration rate of patients with acquired brain injury.20 On the other hand, the speaking valve can reconstruct the glottic closure reflex and cough reflex through the action of subglottic receptors and the remodelling of throat sensation, thus promoting speech rehabilitation and improving communication and quality of life.21 The results of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) showed that, compared with patients who did not wear speaking valves, the time from tracheostomy to establishing language communication was significantly shorter for patients wearing speaking valves.22 In addition, the use of speaking valves in patients with tracheostomy can also improve the sense of smell and reduce airway secretion.23
However, there is controversy regarding the effectiveness of speaking valves in tracheotomised patients. For example, Fernández Carmona et al reported that the use of a speaking valve can accelerate decannulation.24 However, some studies have shown that the use of a speaking valve cannot shorten the mechanical ventilation time after tracheostomy tube placement.22 25 Researchers believe that wearing a speaking valve can improve patients’ communication ability, swallowing function and mobility, thereby improving quality of life.18 25 26 However, some studies have reported that there is no significant difference in the improvement of quality of life by speaking valves.22
Only one systematic review has studied the clinical outcomes of speaking valves in patients with tracheostomy, but adverse events associated with the use of speaking valves have not been reported, and patients’ overall health and swallowing-related biomechanical parameters have not been adequately assessed.27 This systematic review included adult and paediatric patients, with a population heterogeneity. In addition, clinical studies published in this area in recent years were not included in this systematic review. This new review will incorporate additional studies. For example, a cohort study published in 2020 explored the impact of speaking valve performance on patients’ mobility.26 Therefore, a comprehensive systematic review of the available clinical practice evidence is necessary to inform clinical practice and future studies of speaking valves in adult patients with tracheostomy.
Objective
The impact of speaking valves on tracheostomy in adult patients will be investigated by systematically reviewing, summarising and interpreting clinical trials. We will attempt to answer the following questions: what are the clinical outcomes (swallowing function, quality of life, mobility, articulation, duration of tracheostomy, duration of mechanical ventilation, time to return to oral feeding, length of hospitalisation and adverse events) in adult tracheotomised patients with versus without speaking valves? Does the impact of speaking valves on adult patients with tracheostomy vary according to intervention characteristics (eg, type of speaking valve, duration of intervention)?
Methods and analysis
Patient and public involvement
Patients and the public will not be involved in this review.
Protocol and registration
This systematic review protocol will strictly follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines and the general guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration.28 29 We have registered this study on the PROSPERO website under registration number CRD42024502906.
Criteria for study selection
Participants
This protocol will include adult tracheostomy patients (aged ≥18 years). Patients will be excluded if they have undergone head and neck surgery, such as laryngectomy or partial laryngectomy.
Intervention
For patients using speaking valves, there will be no limitation on the type, frequency of use or duration of intervention.
Control
The control group will not use the speaking valve or will only receive usual care. Usual care refers to the standard care that patients receive in a hospital setting, such as swallowing training and respiratory rehabilitation training.
Outcomes
Studies containing one of the primary or secondary outcomes will be included.
Primary outcomes
-
Swallowing function: incidence of aspiration, time to return to oral intake, biomechanical parameters related to swallowing (subglottic pressure, VP-Max, tongue base maximal pressure, UES-RD, UES residual pressure, laryngeal vestibule closure time, anterior hyoid displacement, upper hyoid displacement and Penetration-Aspiration Scale score).
-
Speech vocalisation: time from tracheostomy insertion to phonation, voice quality.
-
Quality of life: measured by the EuroQol-5D questionnaire or another validated scales.
Secondary outcomes
-
Mobility: measured by the Perme Intensive Care Unit Mobility Score or other validated scales.
-
Incidence and severity of adverse events.
-
Others: duration of tracheostomy, duration of tracheostomy cannulation, length of hospital stay and length of ICU stay.
Study design
Experimental studies (RCTs, quasi-RCTs and non-RCTs), quasi-experimental studies (controlled before–after studies and interrupted time series), observational studies (cohort studies, case-control studies) and case series.
Other exclusion criteria
-
Articles not in English.
-
Articles for which full text or complete data are not available.
-
Both groups used speaking valves for clinical trials, such as comparing different types of speaking valves.
-
Case reports or case series (<5 patients), study protocols, reviews, comments, conference abstracts and letters to the editor.
Literature searches
We will conduct a comprehensive search of the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. We will also manually search the reference lists of the original studies to screen for studies that may meet the criteria. Furthermore, grey literature will be searched on the open grey website (http://www.opengrey.eu/). The search period will be from database establishment to 31 January 2024, and the search language will be limited to English. Searches will be conducted using both medical subject terms and free-text terms related to tracheostomy and speaking valves. The search strategy used for PubMed is shown in table 1. The search will be performed following the publication of this protocol (estimated to start on 1 October 2024 and be completed on 31 March 2025).
Selection process
Literature screening will be performed independently by two reviewers who will import all the original literature retrieved into Endnote V.X9 Literature Manager. After eliminating duplicates, two reviewers will read the titles and abstracts of the articles independently. Any article that is likely to pass the initial screening by at least one reviewer will be evaluated in full text. For studies that are recommended for exclusion by the consensus of two reviewers, we will document the number of exclusions and the reasons for them. Disagreements will be resolved through consultation or by consulting a third party. The process of literature selection is shown in figure 1.
Data extraction
The two reviewers involved in the literature selection will independently screen and extract the data and record all the data in an Excel spreadsheet. The data collected will include study characteristics (first author, year of publication, title, country, study design and study setting), participant information (inclusion/exclusion criteria, sample size, age and sex), details of interventions and comparisons (if applicable), assessment indicators, outcomes (primary and secondary outcomes) and loss to follow-up. When the data are incomplete or unclear, we will contact the original authors whenever possible. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion or adjudicated by a third investigator if necessary.
Risk-of-bias assessment
The two authors will independently assess the risk of bias of each study. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool will be used to assess the methodological quality of experimental and quasi-experimental studies,30 and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale will be used to assess observational studies.31 The quality of the case series will be evaluated using recommendations from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.32 Other study members will join the discussion when a consensus cannot be reached on the evaluation results.
Data synthesis
RevMan V.5.4 software will be used for data analysis. If possible, at least two studies are needed to conduct a meta-analysis of each outcome indicator to determine the impact of the intervention.33 Interventional studies and observational studies should combine effect sizes separately.34 The mean difference (MD) or standardised MD and 95% CI are used as effect indicators for continuous data. The relative risk or OR and 95% CI are used as effect indicators for the dichotomous data. The heterogeneity of effect size estimates between studies will be quantified using the Q statistic and the I² index. If the data are homogeneous, we plan to choose to combine effect sizes using a fixed effects model.
When I² > 50% or p<0.10 indicates heterogeneity, a random effects model will be used for meta-analysis. To explore the source of significant heterogeneity with sufficient available data, we will attempt to perform subgroup analysis and metaregression analysis,35 taking into account the type of study design, sample size, type of speaking valves, frequency of use and duration of intervention. If necessary, sensitivity analyses can be performed to test the robustness of the results by removing studies with a high risk of bias or missing data. However, if the heterogeneity is too obvious to resolve or the number of original studies is limited, a descriptive analysis will be performed.
When more than 10 qualifying trials are included in this review, we will complete a publication bias analysis by funnel plot or using the Egger test.29
Strength of evidence
It is recommended that the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach be used to evaluate the quality of evidence on intervention effects.36 GRADE classifies evidence levels into high, medium, low and very low based on five domains: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias. Finally, the results summary table and evidence profile will be generated.
Discussion
The speaking valve is a portable and effective treatment option for patients with tracheostomy, and it is gradually being applied. This systematic review will explore the effectiveness, safety and impact on the quality of life of speaking valves for adult tracheotomised patients and establish a relatively solid evidence base for the rehabilitation of tracheotomised patients. The conclusions of this review may be of benefit to adult patients who undergo tracheostomy and clinicians. This study may have several limitations. First, the programme will only include studies published in English, and no literature in other languages will be selected, which may affect the representativeness of the conclusions. In addition, due to the differences in the characteristics of the included studies (such as sample size, speaking valve type, intervention time, etc), there may be high heterogeneity. Therefore, if the necessary data are available, a subgroup analysis will be performed.
Ethics and dissemination
This study is based on the literature in the database and does not require the approval of the ethics committee. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and conferences.
Ethics statements
Patient consent for publication
This post was originally published on https://bmjopen.bmj.com