Suppr超能文献

基于吸入器类型比较老年呼吸系统疾病患者的吸入器使用技术。

Comparing Inhaler Use Technique Based on Inhaler Type in Elderly Patients with Respiratory Disease.

作者信息

Lee Ha Youn, Song Jin Hwa, Won Ha-Kyeong, Park Yeonkyung, Chung Keun Bum, Lim Hyo-Jeong, Ahn Young Mee, Lee Byoung Jun

机构信息

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Serim General Hospital, Incheon, Republic of Korea.

Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Veterans Health Service Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

出版信息

Tuberc Respir Dis (Seoul). 2021 Jan;84(1):46-54. doi: 10.4046/trd.2020.0021. Epub 2020 Sep 28.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate inhaler device handling in elderly patients. Inhaler devices with respect to misuse and error correction were also compared.

METHODS

Inhaler use technique was assessed using standardized checklists at the first visit and 3-month follow-up visit after retraining. The primary outcome was difference in the acceptable use ratio among inhaler devices. Secondary outcomes included differences in error correction, the most common step of misuse, and factors affecting the accuracy of inhaler use.

RESULTS

A total of 251 patients (mean age, 76.4 years) were included. The handling of 320 devices was assessed in the study. All patients had been trained before. However, only 24.7% of them used inhalers correctly. Proportions of acceptable use for Evohaler, Respimat, Turbuhaler, Ellipta, and Breezhaler/Handihaler were 38.7%, 50.0%, 61.4%, 60.8%, and 43.2%, respectively (p=0.026). At the second visit, the acceptable use ratio had increased. There were no significant differences among inhaler types (Evohaler, 63.9%; Respimat, 86.1%; Turbuhaler, 74.3%; Ellipta, 64.6%; and Breezhaler/Handihaler, 65.3% [p=0.129]). In multivariate analysis, body mass index, Turbuhaler, and Ellipta showed positive correlations with acceptable use of inhalers, whereas Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Test score showed a negative correlation.

CONCLUSION

Although new inhalers have been developed, the accuracy of inhaler use remains low. Elderly patients showed more errors when using pressurized metered-dose inhalers than using dry powder inhalers and soft-mist inhalers. However, there were no significant differences in misuse among inhaler devices after individual training. Results of this study suggests that repeat training is more important than inhaler type.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在调查老年患者使用吸入装置的情况。同时还比较了吸入装置在误用和纠错方面的情况。

方法

在首次就诊时以及重新培训后3个月的随访中,使用标准化检查表评估吸入装置的使用技术。主要结局是不同吸入装置之间可接受使用比例的差异。次要结局包括纠错方面的差异、最常见的误用步骤以及影响吸入装置使用准确性的因素。

结果

共纳入251例患者(平均年龄76.4岁)。本研究评估了320个装置的使用情况。所有患者之前均接受过培训。然而,只有24.7%的患者正确使用了吸入器。爱全乐吸入器(Evohaler)、能倍乐(Respimat)、都保(Turbuhaler)、易纳器(Ellipta)和布地奈德/特布他林吸入器(Breezhaler/Handihaler)的可接受使用比例分别为38.7%、50.0%、61.4%、60.8%和43.2%(p = 0.026)。在第二次就诊时,可接受使用比例有所提高。不同吸入器类型之间无显著差异(爱全乐吸入器为63.9%;能倍乐为86.1%;都保为74.3%;易纳器为64.6%;布地奈德/特布他林吸入器为65.3% [p = 0.129])。多因素分析显示,体重指数、都保和易纳器与吸入器的可接受使用呈正相关,而慢性阻塞性肺疾病评估测试评分呈负相关。

结论

尽管已开发出新的吸入器,但吸入器使用的准确性仍然较低。老年患者使用压力定量吸入器时比使用干粉吸入器和软雾吸入器时出现的错误更多。然而,个体培训后不同吸入装置在误用方面无显著差异。本研究结果表明,重复培训比吸入器类型更重要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a550/7801805/9ab4444ad6f3/trd-2020-0021f1.jpg

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