Ting C K, Liao M H
Department of Pediatrics, Provincial Taipei Hospital, Shin-Chuang City, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Zhonghua Min Guo Xiao Er Ke Yi Xue Hui Za Zhi. 1991 Nov-Dec;32(6):372-81.
A total of 29 cases were enrolled in this study and divided randomly into Group I (traditional epinephrine injection) and Group II (terbutaline nebulizer inhalation). If patients did not respond well to the initial therapy. a crossover therapeutic regimen was assigned and their pulmonary function, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) was measured every 10 minutes for half an hour. Both groups of patients revealed significant improvement post initial treatment P less than 0.0001). Within group difference was analysis by Wilcoxon signed rank test. All subgroups at 10 minutes, 20 minutes, and 30 minutes were compared in terms of their baseline pulmonary function, epinephrine group P value showed 0.0059, 0.0038, 0.0025; and terbutaline nebulizer inhalation group P value showed as 0.0007. 0.0003, 0.0003 respectively. An analysis of the group with an initial PEFR below 40% of the normal predicted or the more severely ill childhood acute asthmatic patients, the ten minutes post-treatment PEFR value of the epinephrine group showed P = 0.059; a significant P value of 0.0038 was noted for the terbutaline inhalation group, but both group P value was less than 0.05 at 20.30 minutes post-treatment, respectively. Between-group difference was analysed by Mann Whitney U test. Although all time interval mean data showed higher for the terbutaline inhalation group, statistically it showed P greater than 0.05. The above data suggest terbutaline inhalation therapy at the dosage noted will have early onset of action and better early clinical improvement than the traditional epinephrine injection regimen. There seemed to be no difference in degree of improvement between the two regimens. Observation of crossover treatment found a 50% re-response rate in both group of of patients who did not respond well to their initial regimen, and post crossover treatment PEFR all showed statistically significant improvement. However, still there was no significant difference between the two groups. This suggests that the terbutaline nebulizer inhalation method can not totally replace the more traditional method of acute asthma management, and emphasizes that a crossover therapeutic regimen should be kept in mind because the re-response rate is still encouraging. According to the variance analysis, the most important factor influencing the final outcome was the degree of severity of the initial asthmatic attack. The lower in initial PEFR value. The worse the clinical response. Other factors like age, sex, duration of asthma (year) and time interval between onset to arrival at the emergency room, showed as neither significant nor important.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
本研究共纳入29例患者,随机分为I组(传统肾上腺素注射)和II组(特布他林雾化吸入)。若患者对初始治疗反应不佳,则采用交叉治疗方案,并在半小时内每隔10分钟测量其肺功能、呼气峰值流速(PEFR)。两组患者初始治疗后均有显著改善(P<0.0001)。组内差异采用Wilcoxon符号秩检验进行分析。在10分钟、20分钟和30分钟时,比较所有亚组的基线肺功能,肾上腺素组P值分别为0.0059、0.0038、0.0025;特布他林雾化吸入组P值分别为0.0007、0.0003、0.0003。对初始PEFR低于正常预计值40%的组或病情更严重的儿童急性哮喘患者进行分析,肾上腺素组治疗后10分钟的PEFR值显示P = 0.059;特布他林吸入组P值为0.0038,但两组在治疗后20、30分钟时P值均小于0.05。组间差异采用Mann Whitney U检验进行分析。虽然所有时间间隔的平均数据显示特布他林吸入组更高,但统计学上显示P>0.05。上述数据表明,所述剂量的特布他林吸入疗法比传统肾上腺素注射方案起效更早,早期临床改善更好。两种方案在改善程度上似乎没有差异。交叉治疗观察发现,对初始方案反应不佳的两组患者的再反应率均为50%,交叉治疗后PEFR均显示有统计学意义的改善。然而,两组之间仍无显著差异。这表明特布他林雾化吸入方法不能完全取代更传统的急性哮喘治疗方法,并强调应牢记交叉治疗方案,因为再反应率仍然令人鼓舞。根据方差分析,影响最终结果的最重要因素是初始哮喘发作的严重程度。初始PEFR值越低,临床反应越差。其他因素如年龄、性别、哮喘病程(年)以及发病至到达急诊室的时间间隔,既无显著性也不重要。(摘要截断于400字)