Metered dose inhaler and nebuliser in acute asthma

Y Z Lin, K H Hsieh, Y Z Lin, K H Hsieh

Abstract

One hundred and eleven children with acute asthma were studied to compare delivery of terbutaline by either a metered dose inhaler (MDI) with a valved holding chamber or a nebuliser driven by air. Eligible patients were randomised; the MDI group received three puffs (0.75 mg) of terbutaline and the nebuliser group received 2 ml (5.0 mg) terbutaline solution diluted with 2 ml 0.9% saline for inhalation over 10 minutes. Patients were evaluated by spirometry, pulse oximetry, and clinical severity scoring system at baseline and again 15 minutes after the beginning of treatment. The baseline data of the two groups were not significantly different. All parameters of spirometry, except the peak expiratory flow (PEF) for the nebuliser group, and clinical severity score for both groups significantly improved after terbutaline treatment. Compared with the nebuliser group, the MDI group after treatment had better mean (SD) oxygen saturation (SaO2; 96.82 (1.63)% v 95.44 (1.88)%), frequency of oxygen desaturation (23.2% v 47.3%), absolute increase of PEF (32.6 (37.7) l/min v 10.2 (34.7) l/min), and SaO2 (0.54 (1.64)% v -0.47 (1.84)%). There was also a mean (SD) per cent increase of forced expiratory volume in one second (22.9 (21.0)% v 15.4 (16.1)%), PEF (27.7 (38.4)%) v 7.7 (25.1)%), and SaO2 (0.58 (1.72)% v -0.47 (1.93)%). In conclusion, aerosol treatment by MDI (with a valved holding chamber) in this study proved to be superior to nebuliser treatment in terms of SaO2 and some measurements of spirometry. Respiratory therapists working with children with severe asthma should be aware of the possibility of oxygen desaturation, especially when using room air as the driving gas for nebulisation.

References

    1. Chest. 1993 Sep;104(3):835-41
    1. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1972 Feb;49(2):63-71
    1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1973 May;107(5):869-73
    1. Br Med J. 1975 Apr 19;2(5963):119-20
    1. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1979 Feb;63(2):116-21
    1. Can Med Assoc J. 1979 Apr 7;120(7):813-6
    1. Thorax. 1980 Jun;35(6):477-8
    1. Ann Emerg Med. 1981 Jul;10(7):353-5
    1. Thorax. 1981 Feb;36(2):116-21
    1. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1981 Nov 14;283(6302):1285-7
    1. Pediatrics. 1983 Jan;71(1):13-8
    1. J Pediatr. 1983 Mar;102(3):465-9
    1. Ann Allergy. 1983 Jun;50(6):398-401
    1. Chest. 1983 Jul;84(1):36-41
    1. Lancet. 1983 Sep 10;2(8350):592-4
    1. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1983;25(6):739-42
    1. Thorax. 1983 Dec;38(12):908-13
    1. Chest. 1984 Dec;86(6):868-9
    1. Thorax. 1984 Dec;39(12):935-41
    1. Chest. 1986 Sep;90(3):392-5
    1. Eur J Respir Dis. 1986 Aug;69(2):109-13
    1. Lancet. 1986 Dec 20-27;2(8521-22):1424-5
    1. Arch Dis Child. 1987 Oct;62(10):997-1000
    1. Chest. 1988 Mar;93(3):476-81
    1. Chest. 1989 May;95(5):1017-20
    1. Eur Respir J. 1989 Oct;2(9):887-92
    1. Chest. 1989 Dec;96(6):1237-40
    1. Ann Allergy. 1991 Mar;66(3):231-4
    1. Agents Actions. 1990 Nov;31(3-4):225-8
    1. Chest. 1992 Feb;101(2):305-8
    1. Chest. 1992 Mar;101(3):634-7
    1. J Pediatr. 1993 Aug;123(2):313-7
    1. Zhonghua Min Guo Xiao Er Ke Yi Xue Hui Za Zhi. 1994 Sep-Oct;35(5):377-84
    1. J Asthma. 1985;22(2):87-92

Source: PubMed

3
購読する