Lin Y Z, Hsieh K H
Department of Paediatrics, Taipei Municipal Chung Hsiao Hospital, Taiwan, ROC.
Arch Dis Child. 1995 Mar;72(3):214-8. doi: 10.1136/adc.72.3.214.
One hundred and eleven children with acute asthma were studied to compare delivery of terbutaline by either a metered dose inhaler (MDI) with a valved holding chamber or a nebuliser driven by air. Eligible patients were randomised; the MDI group received three puffs (0.75 mg) of terbutaline and the nebuliser group received 2 ml (5.0 mg) terbutaline solution diluted with 2 ml 0.9% saline for inhalation over 10 minutes. Patients were evaluated by spirometry, pulse oximetry, and clinical severity scoring system at baseline and again 15 minutes after the beginning of treatment. The baseline data of the two groups were not significantly different. All parameters of spirometry, except the peak expiratory flow (PEF) for the nebuliser group, and clinical severity score for both groups significantly improved after terbutaline treatment. Compared with the nebuliser group, the MDI group after treatment had better mean (SD) oxygen saturation (SaO2; 96.82 (1.63)% v 95.44 (1.88)%), frequency of oxygen desaturation (23.2% v 47.3%), absolute increase of PEF (32.6 (37.7) l/min v 10.2 (34.7) l/min), and SaO2 (0.54 (1.64)% v -0.47 (1.84)%). There was also a mean (SD) per cent increase of forced expiratory volume in one second (22.9 (21.0)% v 15.4 (16.1)%), PEF (27.7 (38.4)%) v 7.7 (25.1)%), and SaO2 (0.58 (1.72)% v -0.47 (1.93)%). In conclusion, aerosol treatment by MDI (with a valved holding chamber) in this study proved to be superior to nebuliser treatment in terms of SaO2 and some measurements of spirometry. Respiratory therapists working with children with severe asthma should be aware of the possibility of oxygen desaturation, especially when using room air as the driving gas for nebulisation.
对111名急性哮喘患儿进行了研究,以比较使用带储雾罐的定量气雾剂(MDI)或空气驱动雾化器给予特布他林的效果。符合条件的患者被随机分组;MDI组吸入三喷(0.75毫克)特布他林,雾化器组接受用2毫升0.9%生理盐水稀释的2毫升(5.0毫克)特布他林溶液,在10分钟内吸入。在基线时以及治疗开始后15分钟,通过肺功能仪、脉搏血氧饱和度仪和临床严重程度评分系统对患者进行评估。两组的基线数据无显著差异。特布他林治疗后,除雾化器组的呼气峰值流速(PEF)外,肺功能仪的所有参数以及两组的临床严重程度评分均显著改善。与雾化器组相比,治疗后MDI组的平均(标准差)血氧饱和度(SaO2;96.82(1.63)%对95.44(1.88)%)、血氧饱和度下降频率(23.2%对47.3%)、PEF的绝对增加值(32.6(37.7)升/分钟对10.2(34.7)升/分钟)和SaO2(0.54(1.64)%对 -0.47(1.84)%)更好。一秒用力呼气量的平均(标准差)百分比增加值也更高(22.9(21.0)%对15.4(16.1)%)、PEF(27.7(38.4)%对7.7(25.1)%)和SaO2(0.58(1.72)%对 -0.47(1.93)%)。总之,在本研究中,MDI(带储雾罐)雾化治疗在SaO2和一些肺功能测量方面被证明优于雾化器治疗。治疗重症哮喘患儿的呼吸治疗师应意识到血氧饱和度下降的可能性,尤其是在使用室内空气作为雾化驱动气体时。