Heart & lung : the journal of critical care · 2026
Emergency-use spacers: a considerable option for asthmatic patients.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Sayed Omar Ahmed, Laz Nabila Ibrahim, Abdelrahim Mohamed Ea, Saeed Haitham
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) spacers improve delivery by reducing hand-breath coordination requirements.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of emergency-use and conventional spacers.
METHOD: a multi-arm, parallel-group, randomized trial in which 108 asthmatics were randomized to 9 groups (pMDI alone and various spacers); each received 400 µg salbutamol. Emitted dose on the ex vivo filter was quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography. Pulmonary absorption was assessed via urinary salbutamol at 0.5 h post-dose (USAL0.5) and spirometry changes was assessed via forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and its percent of predicted (∆FEV₁ and ∆FEV₁% predicted), and forced vital capacity (∆FVC).
RESULTS: While the pMDI alone group yielded the highest ex vivo deposition (325.4 µg, P ˂0.001), it showed the lowest USAL0.5 (4.13 µg, P ˂0.001-0.032) and ∆FEV₁ (0.12 L, P ˂0.001). Among all tested devices, the Aerochamber, Able, and Tips-Haler spacers demonstrated superior performance (ex vivo filter: 207.1, 181.1, 167.5 µg, P ˂0.001-0.02; USAL0.5: 11.61, 11.15, 10.73 µg, P ˂0.001-0.09), ∆FEV₁: 0.32, 0.29, 0.31 L, respectively, P ˂0.001-0.06), with no significant difference between the three spacers, except the Aerochamber showed a significantly higher ex vivo result (P ˂0.001-0.02). DispozABLE and Lite-Air showed moderate efficacy, whereas the Atomizer, showed the lowest pulmonary function performance with varied significance across devices.
CONCLUSION: This study emphasizes the significance of spacer design. It supports the use of validated emergency-use spacers in low-resource or emergency settings where conventional devices are not available. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT06816342.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of emergency-use and conventional spacers.
METHOD: a multi-arm, parallel-group, randomized trial in which 108 asthmatics were randomized to 9 groups (pMDI alone and various spacers); each received 400 µg salbutamol. Emitted dose on the ex vivo filter was quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography. Pulmonary absorption was assessed via urinary salbutamol at 0.5 h post-dose (USAL0.5) and spirometry changes was assessed via forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and its percent of predicted (∆FEV₁ and ∆FEV₁% predicted), and forced vital capacity (∆FVC).
RESULTS: While the pMDI alone group yielded the highest ex vivo deposition (325.4 µg, P ˂0.001), it showed the lowest USAL0.5 (4.13 µg, P ˂0.001-0.032) and ∆FEV₁ (0.12 L, P ˂0.001). Among all tested devices, the Aerochamber, Able, and Tips-Haler spacers demonstrated superior performance (ex vivo filter: 207.1, 181.1, 167.5 µg, P ˂0.001-0.02; USAL0.5: 11.61, 11.15, 10.73 µg, P ˂0.001-0.09), ∆FEV₁: 0.32, 0.29, 0.31 L, respectively, P ˂0.001-0.06), with no significant difference between the three spacers, except the Aerochamber showed a significantly higher ex vivo result (P ˂0.001-0.02). DispozABLE and Lite-Air showed moderate efficacy, whereas the Atomizer, showed the lowest pulmonary function performance with varied significance across devices.
CONCLUSION: This study emphasizes the significance of spacer design. It supports the use of validated emergency-use spacers in low-resource or emergency settings where conventional devices are not available. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT06816342.