Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland; and Department of Respiratory Medicine, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Department of Internal Medicine, King Fahd Hospital of the University, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
Respir Care. 2023 Nov;68(11):1532-1539. doi: 10.4187/respcare.10132. Epub 2023 Jun 6.
The recommended treatment of COPD exacerbations includes administration of short-acting bronchodilators that act to reverse bronchoconstriction, restore lung volumes, and relieve breathlessness. In vitro studies demonstrate vibrating mesh nebulizers (VMNs) provide greater drug delivery to the airway compared to standard small-volume nebulizers (SVNs). We examined whether the physiological and symptom response to nebulized bronchodilators during a COPD exacerbation differed between these 2 modes of bronchodilator delivery.
Subjects hospitalized with a COPD exacerbation participated in a comparative clinical effectiveness study of 2 methods of nebulization. Using block randomization, 32 participants in this open-label trial were administered salbutamol 2.5 mg/ipratropium bromide 0.5 mg via vibrating mesh (VMN group, = 16) or small-volume jet nebulizer (SVN group, = 16) on one occasion. Spirometry, body plethysmography, and impulse oscillometry were performed and Borg breathlessness scores recorded pre bronchodilator and at 1 h post bronchodilator.
Baseline demographics were comparable between groups. Mean FEV was 48% predicted. Significant changes in lung volumes and airway impedance were seen in both groups. Inspiratory capacity (IC) increased by 0.27 ± 0.20 L and 0.21 ± 0.20 L in the VMN and SVN group, respectively, between group difference = .40. FVC increased in the VMN group by 0.41 ± 0.40 L compared to 0.19 ± 0.20 L with SVN, between group difference = .053; and residual volume (RV) decreased by 0.36 ± 0.80 L and 0.16 ± 0.50 L in the VMN and SVN group, respectively, between group difference = .41. The VMN group had a significant reduction in Borg breathlessness score, = .034.
Greater improvement in symptoms, and larger absolute change in FVC, was observed in response to equivalent doses of standard bronchodilators administered by VMN, compared to SVN, but no substantial difference in change in IC.
COPD 加重的推荐治疗包括使用短效支气管扩张剂,这些药物可逆转支气管收缩、恢复肺容积并缓解呼吸困难。体外研究表明,与标准小容量雾化器(SVN)相比,振动网孔雾化器(VMN)可提供更多的气道药物输送。我们研究了在 COPD 加重期间,这两种支气管扩张剂输送方式对雾化支气管扩张剂的生理和症状反应是否存在差异。
因 COPD 加重而住院的受试者参与了一项关于两种雾化方式的比较临床效果研究。在这项开放性标签试验中,使用区组随机化,32 名受试者被随机分为 2 组,每组 16 名,分别接受沙丁胺醇 2.5mg/异丙托溴铵 0.5mg 通过振动网孔(VMN 组)或小容量射流雾化器(SVN 组)雾化吸入。在雾化前和雾化后 1 小时进行肺量测定、体描法和脉冲振荡法检查,并记录 Borg 呼吸困难评分。
两组的基线人口统计学特征相似。平均 FEV1 为预计值的 48%。两组的肺容积和气道阻抗均有显著变化。吸气量(IC)在 VMN 组增加了 0.27±0.20L,在 SVN 组增加了 0.21±0.20L,组间差异为 0.40L。VMN 组的 FVC 增加了 0.41±0.40L,而 SVN 组增加了 0.19±0.20L,组间差异为 0.053L;残气量(RV)在 VMN 组减少了 0.36±0.80L,在 SVN 组减少了 0.16±0.50L,组间差异为 0.41L。VMN 组的 Borg 呼吸困难评分显著降低,差异为 0.034。
与 SVN 相比,VMN 给予标准支气管扩张剂可显著改善症状,且 FVC 的绝对变化更大,但 IC 的变化无实质性差异。