Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Lung. 2020 Feb;198(1):113-120. doi: 10.1007/s00408-019-00292-7. Epub 2019 Nov 15.
Aerosol furosemide may be an option to treat refractory dyspnea, though doses, methods of delivery, and outcomes have been variable. We hypothesized that controlled delivery of high dose aerosol furosemide would reduce variability of dyspnea relief in patients with underlying pulmonary disease.
Seventeen patients with chronic exertional dyspnea were recruited. Patients rated recently recalled breathing discomfort on a numerical rating scale (NRS) and the multidimensional dyspnea profile (MDP). They then performed graded exercise using an arm-ergometer. The NRS was completed following each exercise grade, and the MDP was repeated after a pre-defined dyspnea threshold was reached. During separate visits, patients received either aerosol saline or 80 mg of aerosol furosemide in a randomized, double-blind, crossover design. After treatment, graded exercise to the pre-treatment level was repeated, followed by completion of the NRS and MDP. Treatment effect was defined as the difference between pre- and post-treatment NRS at end exercise, expressed in absolute terms as % Full Scale. "Responders" were defined as those showing treatment effect ≥ 20% of full scale.
Final analysis included 15 patients. Neither treatment produced a statistically significant change in NRS and there was no significant difference between treatments (p = 0.45). There were four "responders" and one patient whose dyspnea worsened with furosemide; two patients were responders with saline, of whom one also responded to furosemide. No adverse events were reported.
High dose controlled delivery aerosol furosemide was not statistically different from saline placebo at reducing exercise-induced dyspnea. However, a clinically meaningful improvement was noted in some patients.
尽管剂量、给药方法和结果各不相同,但吸入呋塞米可能是治疗难治性呼吸困难的一种选择。我们假设,高剂量吸入呋塞米的控制给药将减少基础肺部疾病患者呼吸困难缓解的变异性。
招募了 17 名患有慢性运动性呼吸困难的患者。患者使用数字评定量表(NRS)和多维呼吸困难量表(MDP)对最近回忆的呼吸不适进行评分。然后,他们使用手臂测力计进行分级运动。在每个运动等级后完成 NRS,在达到预设的呼吸困难阈值后重复 MDP。在单独的访问中,患者以随机、双盲、交叉设计接受气雾剂生理盐水或 80mg 气雾剂呋塞米。治疗后,重复至治疗前水平的分级运动,然后完成 NRS 和 MDP。治疗效果定义为运动结束时治疗前后 NRS 的差异,以全量表的绝对值表示为%。“应答者”定义为显示治疗效果≥全量表的 20%的患者。
最终分析包括 15 名患者。两种治疗方法均未使 NRS 发生统计学上的显著变化,且两种治疗方法之间无显著差异(p=0.45)。有 4 名“应答者”和 1 名患者的呼吸困难在使用呋塞米后恶化;2 名患者对生理盐水有反应,其中 1 名患者对呋塞米也有反应。未报告不良事件。
高剂量控制释放吸入呋塞米在减轻运动引起的呼吸困难方面与生理盐水安慰剂无统计学差异。然而,一些患者的呼吸困难有明显改善。