Efficacy of metered-dose inhaler administration of albuterol in intubated infants

24Citations
Citations of this article
43Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Study objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of metered-dose inhaler (MDI) albuterol to nebulized (NEB) albuterol administration. Design: A randomized, triple-blinded, crossover study. Setting: A pediatric ICU in a tertiary care children's hospital. Patients: Eleven intubated infants with bronchiolitis. Interventions: Subjects received four puffs of MDI albuterol (360 μg) and 3 mL of NEB saline solution placebo or 0.3 mL of NEB albuterol (1.5 mg) and MDI saline solution placebo. Each set of albuterol and saline solution placebo was administered after direct attachment of delivery device to the endotracheal tube and bag-valve system. Subjects received the opposite sequence 4 h after the initial sequence. The second sequence was given first the next day, and the first sequence was administered 4 h later. Measurements and results: Respiratory system compliance and resistance were measured at baseline and 30 min, 1 h, 2 h, and 4 h after each set of placebo and albuterol. There was an appreciable improvement in compliance and resistance for up to 2 h following both methods of administration. However, the degree of improvement was not significantly different (p>0.05) between the two methods. Neither method caused a significant change in resistance when measured at 4 h after albuterol/placebo administration. No evidence of toxicity was detected. Conclusions: MDI-administered albuterol is as safe and efficacious as nebulized-administered albuterol in intubated infants with bronchiolitis. Generalizability of these results is limited by differences in drug delivery with different brands of nebulizers and spacers and sites of attachment.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Torres, A., Anders, M., Anderson, P., & Heulitt, M. J. (1997). Efficacy of metered-dose inhaler administration of albuterol in intubated infants. Chest, 112(2), 484–490. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.112.2.484

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free