Comparison of Breath-actuated and Conventional Constant-flow Jet Nebulizers in Treating Acute Asthmatic Children

吸氣同步啓動與持續氣流高壓氣體霧化器用於治療氣喘患童之比較

林應然(Yung-Zen Lin) ； 黃富源(Fu-Yuan Huang)

《Acta Paediatrica Taiwanica》 45卷2期 (2004/04) Pp. 73-76

https://doi.org/10.7097/APT.200404.0073

摘要

爲比較吸氣同步啓動(breath-actuated)與持續氣流(constant-flow)兩種高壓氣體霧化器裝置用於治療氣喘患童之功效，我們將72位5-15歲之急性氣喘患童隨機分爲兩組，一組有39位接受持續氣流高壓氣體霧化器治療，另一組有33位接受吸氣同步啓動高壓氣體霧化器治療。病童先測量治療前之肺功能、血氣飽和濃度、及脈搏，再接受以2ml等滲透食鹽水稀釋terbutaline(5mg/2ml)溶液霧化吸入治療10分鍾。治療完成後0,5,15,30分鍾各再測一次肺功能、血氧飽和濃度及脈搏。結果顯示：與治療前相比，兩種治療後之肺功能測驗項目包括第一秒呼氧容量(FEV1)，最大中間呼氣流速(FEF（下標 25-75%）)，及尖峰呼氣流速(PEF)在各時間點皆有明顯改善。脈搏速率有明顯增快，血氧飽和濃度也有上昇。當兩組互相比較時，同步啓動裝置有較佳之肺功能及血氧飽和濃度改善，但脈搏速率較快。使用10分鍾後，吸氣同步啓動裝置之藥物剩餘量較多。
結論：同樣使用10分鍾支氣管擴張藥物治療，吸氣同步啓動裝置之肺功能及血氧飽和濃度改善較佳，但脈搏速率較快，藥物剩餘量較多，顯示吸氣同步啓動裝置比持續氣流裝置有較多之肺部吸入劑量。

關鍵字

吸氣同步啓動裝置 ； 持續氣流裝置 ； 霧化器 ； 氣喘病童

並列摘要

To compare the therapeutic effects of two small-volume jet nebulization devices, a breath-actuated nebulizer (BAN) and a constant-flow nebulizer (CFN), this study was conducted. Seventy-two asthmatic patients, aged 5 to 15, were randomly enrolled into this study (39 to the CFN group, 33 to the BAN group). Nebulization treatment with terbutaline solution (5.0mg/2ml) diluted with 2 ml isotonic saline for 10 minutes was performed after measurements of baseline spirometry, SaO2, and pulse rate. Measurements of spirometry, SaO2 and pulse rate were repeated at 0, 5, 15 and 30 minutes after the end of the nebulization treatment After treatment, for within-group comparison, all the spirometric parameters (including FEV1, PEF and FEF(subscritp 25-75%)) and SaO2 at various time points of both groups significantly improved. The pulse rate also significantly increased (only at 15 and 30min for the CFN group). For between-group comparison, the BAN group had greater improvement in all the data of spirometric parameters and SaO2 at various time points, but only reached statistical significance at some time points in PEF, FEF(subscritp 25-75%) and SaO2. The pulse rate of the BAN group was significantly higher than that of the CFN group beginning 5 minutes after treatment In conclusion, the BAN device is better than the CFN device in improving the spirometric parameters and oxygen saturation of asthmatic children during an equal 10-minute nebulization therapy. These results, associated with the higher pulse rate evoked in the BAN group, suggest a higher lung deposition ratio in the BAN device.

並列關鍵字

breath-actuated nebulizer ； constant-flow nebulizer ； asthma ； children