Nimmo C J, Chen D N, Martinusen S M, Ustad T L, Ostrow D N
Department of Pharmacy, Vancouver General Hospital, BC, Canada.
Ann Pharmacother. 1993 Jul-Aug;27(7-8):922-7. doi: 10.1177/106002809302700721.
To assess inhalation technique in patients after written instruction alone, written and verbal instruction, and clinical use of two new inhalation devices.
Randomized, crossover evaluation of the albuterol Diskhaler and the terbutaline Turbuhaler.
Canadian tertiary-care hospital.
Twenty hospitalized adults with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease currently using an albuterol metered-dose inhaler (MDI). Nineteen patients received Diskhaler, 16 received Turbuhaler, 15 received both inhalers, and 10 patients used both inhalers for three days each.
Patients were randomized to receive either Diskhaler or Turbuhaler for three days. Inhaler technique was assessed after written instruction, written plus verbal instruction, at the first scheduled dose after instruction, and after three days of clinical use. Patients remaining in the hospital after three days crossed over to the other study inhaler and the same protocol was followed.
Patient inhalation technique was assessed and compared for the MDI, Diskhaler, and Turbuhaler.
Assessment of MDI technique revealed that 35 percent of patients used their MDI correctly on the first puff, and 42 percent used it correctly on the second puff. Following written instruction alone, correct technique was demonstrated by 32 percent of patients with Diskhaler and 6 percent with Turbuhaler. Technique significantly improved following verbal instruction, although 40 percent of the patients required up to three attempts to demonstrate correct technique on at least one of the study inhalers. After three days of clinical use, correct technique was demonstrated in only 54 percent of the Diskhaler and 64 percent of the Turbuhaler assessments. Performance at this assessment was, however, significantly better on the Turbuhaler than on the MDI (p = 0.01). Performance on the Diskhaler was not significantly different from the performance on the other inhalers.
Written instruction alone is inadequate in teaching correct inhalation technique. Verbal instruction and technique assessment are essential for patients to achieve proper technique. Patients may perform better on the Turbuhaler than on other inhalation devices.
评估仅接受书面指导、接受书面及口头指导以及使用两种新型吸入装置临床使用后患者的吸入技术。
对沙丁胺醇都保和特布他林准纳器进行随机交叉评估。
加拿大三级护理医院。
20名目前正在使用沙丁胺醇定量气雾剂(MDI)的住院成年哮喘或慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者。19名患者使用都保,16名患者使用准纳器,15名患者两种吸入器都使用,10名患者每种吸入器各使用三天。
患者被随机分组,接受都保或准纳器治疗三天。在书面指导后、书面加口头指导后、指导后的首次预定剂量时以及临床使用三天后评估吸入技术。三天后仍住院的患者交叉使用另一种研究吸入器,并遵循相同方案。
评估并比较MDI、都保和准纳器的患者吸入技术。
MDI技术评估显示,35%的患者第一次喷药时正确使用MDI,42%的患者第二次喷药时正确使用。仅接受书面指导后,32%使用都保的患者和6%使用准纳器的患者展示了正确技术。口头指导后技术显著改善,尽管40%的患者在至少一种研究吸入器上需要多达三次尝试才能展示正确技术。临床使用三天后,都保评估中仅54%展示了正确技术,准纳器评估中64%展示了正确技术。然而,此次评估中准纳器的表现显著优于MDI(p = 0.01)。都保的表现与其他吸入器的表现无显著差异。
仅书面指导不足以教授正确的吸入技术。口头指导和技术评估对于患者掌握正确技术至关重要。患者使用准纳器的表现可能优于其他吸入装置。