Suppr超能文献

对于Mefar MB3和耶格APS旁流雾化器,乙酰甲胆碱的物理剂量和生物剂量有所不同。

The physical and biological doses of methacholine are different for Mefar MB3 and Jaeger APS sidestream nebulizers.

作者信息

Praml Georg, Scharrer Eva, de la Motte Dorothea, Nowak Dennis, Scheuch Gerhard, Sommerer Knut, Radon Katja

机构信息

Institute of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.

出版信息

Chest. 2005 Nov;128(5):3585-9. doi: 10.1378/chest.128.5.3585.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Within a study on respiratory symptoms in rural areas, we used the European Community Respiratory Health Survey methacholine challenge protocol. For quicker and more reliable handling, we had to change the nebulizer in the bronchial challenge system from Mefar model MB3 (Bovezzo, Italy) to Jaeger APS Sidestream (similar to Mefar; Würzburg, Germany). Therefore, we compared the physical properties of the two systems, adapted the challenge protocol, and compared the results of both systems in subjects with and without airway hyperresponsiveness to methacholine.

METHOD

The physical properties of both systems were characterized by the residual method indicating a similar particle size distribution and an average output of 6 muL/s for Mefar MB3 and 1.25 muL/s for APS Sidestream. In the comparison study, 34 subjects were included. Airway responsiveness was quantified by provocative dose of methacholine causing a 20% fall in FEV(1).

RESULTS

A significant difference was found between the two challenge systems (p =0.004, McNemar test). Nine subjects reached a 20% drop in FEV(1) with the APS Sidestream only. The FEV(1) dropped by > 20% using either system in eight subjects. In 17 subjects, none of the two systems caused a 20% decrease in FEV(1).

CONCLUSION

Even if the physical dose is determined with elaborate methods, the biological dose may vary between two nebulizer systems, causing incomparable outcomes for subjects tested with different systems.

摘要

背景

在一项关于农村地区呼吸道症状的研究中,我们采用了欧洲共同体呼吸健康调查的乙酰甲胆碱激发试验方案。为了更快速、可靠地操作,我们不得不将支气管激发试验系统中的雾化器从Mefar MB3型(意大利博韦佐)更换为耶格APS侧流式(与Mefar类似;德国维尔茨堡)。因此,我们比较了这两种系统的物理特性,调整了激发试验方案,并比较了这两种系统在对乙酰甲胆碱有或无气道高反应性的受试者中的结果。

方法

通过残留法对两种系统的物理特性进行表征,结果表明两种系统的粒径分布相似,Mefar MB3的平均输出量为6微升/秒,APS侧流式为1.25微升/秒。在比较研究中,纳入了34名受试者。通过使第一秒用力呼气容积(FEV₁)下降20%的乙酰甲胆碱激发剂量来量化气道反应性。

结果

两种激发试验系统之间存在显著差异(p = 0.004,McNemar检验)。仅使用APS侧流式时,9名受试者的FEV₁下降了20%。8名受试者使用任一系统时FEV₁下降均超过20%。17名受试者中,两种系统均未导致FEV₁下降20%。

结论

即使通过精细方法确定了物理剂量,两种雾化器系统之间的生物剂量仍可能不同,导致使用不同系统进行测试的受试者出现不可比的结果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验