Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Nebulized Wet Aerosol Treatment in Emergency Department—Is It Essential?
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Nebulized Wet Aerosol Treatment in Emergency Department—Is It Essential?
Do you wish to request the book?
Nebulized Wet Aerosol Treatment in Emergency Department—Is It Essential?
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Nebulized Wet Aerosol Treatment in Emergency Department—Is It Essential?
1997
Overview
To determine the efficacy of a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with a large spacer device as compared to nebulized wet aerosols in the treatment of an unselected population with severe airflow limitation.
Randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial.
University Hospital Department of Emergency Medicine (DEM).
Fifty patients, referred to the DEM between October 1, 1994 and March 31, 1995 with a severe, acute obstructive pulmonary event. Thirteen patients were diagnosed as having COPD; 37 patients were diagnosed as having asthma.
Patients received either placebo MDI through a 750-mL cone-shaped spacer (Glaxo) [2 puffs] and nebulized salbutamol aerosol 0.5 mL in 1.5 mL saline solution (group 1, n=25) or salbutamol MDI and 0.5 mL saline solution in 1.5 mL saline solution administered in the same manner as above (group 2, n=25). The above treatment was repeated three times every 15 min, unless side effects appeared. Upon enrollment into the study, the FEV1 in group 1 was 0.78±0.7 L (mean±SD), 32% of predicted, and in group 2, 0.74±0.51 L, 29% of predicted (p=0.83). The FEV1 values after the first, second, and third interventions were as follows: in group 1, 1.18±0.99 L, 1.40±0.8, and 1.47±0.79, respectively, and in group 2, 1.17±0.99 L, 1.46±1.01, and 1.54±0.79 (p=0.83, 0.36, and 0.48, respectively). We observed no difference in spirometric measurements between the two groups at any time.
Even in the setting of the unselected group of patient referrals to the DEM for episodes of severe airflow limitation, the clinical and the objective bronchodilator responses to the administration of salbutamol are independent of the method of delivery: MDI with a large spacer vs aerosol nebulization.
Publisher
Elsevier Inc,American College of Chest Physicians
Subject
