Respiratory care · 2006
A comparison of 2 methods of continuous aerosol administration during methacholine challenge testing.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hurst Thomas S, Cockcroft Donald W, Hannah Victor D, Davis Beth E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Exposure to the bronchoconstricting agent methacholine is a potential hazard to technical staff during methacholine challenge testing, which remains a useful and frequently performed test. There are several methods of performing the test. One of the 2 methods listed in the American Thoracic Society's guidelines is the 2-min tidal-breathing method. The methacholine can be inhaled using one of several methods. The loosely-fitting-mask method is likely to produce more contamination of the local environment than a filtered exhalation system.
METHODS: We tested 2 variations of the tidal-breathing method of measuring the methacholine provocational concentration (PC(20), the dose that produces a 20% decrease in forced expiratory volume in the first second). One involved use of the open-mask technique and the other a T-piece-and-filter system that precluded the release of methacholine-containing droplets into the environment. We performed duplicate methacholine challenge tests with 10 subjects who had a wide range of PC(20). The tests were done in random order, and each subject performed one test using the mask and one using the T-piece/filter system.
RESULTS: With the mask system the geometric mean PC(20) was 4.7 mg/mL, versus 5.1 mg/mL with the T-piece-filter system (p = 0.36). These values are very close and would not be substantially different clinically.
CONCLUSION: The 2 methods are equivalent, and the low cost of the products used in the T-piece/filter method makes it suitable for reducing technician exposure to methacholine, using potentially completely disposable components.
METHODS: We tested 2 variations of the tidal-breathing method of measuring the methacholine provocational concentration (PC(20), the dose that produces a 20% decrease in forced expiratory volume in the first second). One involved use of the open-mask technique and the other a T-piece-and-filter system that precluded the release of methacholine-containing droplets into the environment. We performed duplicate methacholine challenge tests with 10 subjects who had a wide range of PC(20). The tests were done in random order, and each subject performed one test using the mask and one using the T-piece/filter system.
RESULTS: With the mask system the geometric mean PC(20) was 4.7 mg/mL, versus 5.1 mg/mL with the T-piece-filter system (p = 0.36). These values are very close and would not be substantially different clinically.
CONCLUSION: The 2 methods are equivalent, and the low cost of the products used in the T-piece/filter method makes it suitable for reducing technician exposure to methacholine, using potentially completely disposable components.