Premium
Bronchodilator effect of salbutamol from two different spacer devices
Author(s) -
Li Albert M.,
Tsang Tony,
Wong Eric,
Chan Dorothy,
Sung Rita,
Ng Pak C.
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
pediatric pulmonology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.866
H-Index - 106
eISSN - 1099-0496
pISSN - 8755-6863
DOI - 10.1002/ppul.20369
Subject(s) - salbutamol , medicine , interquartile range , bronchodilator , asthma , anesthesia , spirometry , bronchodilator agents
Our aim was to compare the bronchodilator effect of salbutamol delivered via a new holding chamber (Volumatic Soft, VS) with that of an established device (Volumatic, V) in asthmatic children. Children with stable asthma were recruited. They inhaled 100 µg, and 10 min later, 300 µg of salbutamol aerosol delivered via VS or V on day 1, and vice versa on day 2. Spirometry was measured at baseline, 10 min after 100 µg, and 15 min after 300 µg of salbutamol were given. The preference for either device was assessed by visual analogue score. Forty‐four children with a median age of 9.2 years (interquartile range, 8.0–10.7) completed the study. There were significant improvements in forced expired volume in 1 sec (FEV 1 ) with time throughout the study period for both V and VS (linear and quadratic trend P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in postbronchodilator FEV 1 between V and VS ( P = 0.013). VS gave an overall greater change in FEV 1 than V, by 1.8%. The preference scores for V and VS were 7.0 (IQR 5.0–8.0) and 9.0 (IQR 8.0–10.0) ( p < 0.0005), respectively. In conclusion, comparable clinical efficacy was found for V and VS with respect to changes in FEV 1 after salbutamol. Patients also showed a strong preference for the new device. Pediatr Pulmonol. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.