Comparison of intermittent and continuously nebulized albuterol for treatment of asthma in an urban emergency department

doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(05)80411-1

Annals of Emergency Medicine

Volume 22, Issue 12, December 1993, Pages 1842-1846

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(05)80411-1 Get rights and content

Study objective:

To compare continuously nebulized albuterol with intermittent bolus nebulization of albuterol.

Design:

Consecutive block enrollment in groups of ten to continuous or intermittent therapy.

Setting:

Urban emergency department.

Type of participants:

Patients who presented to the ED with moderate to severe asthma and did not improve after one treatment with nebulized albuterol.

Interventions:

All patients received an initial nebulized treatment with 2.5 mg albuterol followed by 125 mg solumedrol. Patients in the intermittent group received 2.5 mg nebulized albuterol at 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after the initial treatment. Patients in the continuous group received 10 mg albuterol nebulized in 70 mL over two hours.

Results:

There was no difference between groups in age, sex, or initial peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR). Ninety-nine patients were included in the study (47 continuous and 52 intermittent). There was no statistically significant difference in PEFRs or admission rate between groups over the two-hour study period. One subgroup analysis was performed on patients with PEFRs on presentation to the ED of 200 L/min or less. Mean ± SD baseline PEFR at presentation to the ED was 135 ± 35 in the 35 patients in the continuous group and 137 ± 45 in the 34 patients in the intermittent group). At 120 minutes, PEFR was 296 ± 98 in the continuous group and 244 ± 81 in the intermittent group (P = .01). Admission: discharge ratios for this subgroup analysis were 11:24 in the continuous group and 19:14 in the intermittent group (P = .03). Mean ± SD heart rate in the subgroup analysis was 102 ± 21 at baseline for the continuous group and 109 ± 22 at baseline in the intermittent group. At 120 minutes, heart rate was 90 ± 18 in the continuous group and 104 ± 16 in the intermittent group (P = .002).

Conclusions:

Continuous nebulization offers no benefit over intermittent therapy in patients with an initial PEFR of more than 200 L/min. In PEFRs of 200 or less, continuous nebulization may decrease admission rate and improve PEFRs when compared with standard therapy.

References (8)

MolerFW et al.
Improvement in clinical asthma score and Paco₂ in children with severe asthma treated with continuously nebulized terbutaline
J Allergy Clin Immunol
(1988)
ColaconeA et al.
Continuous nebulization of albuterol in acute asthma
Chest
(1990)
BarsanWG et al.
Emergency Drug Therapy
(1991)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (89)

Effect of functional principle, delivery technique, and connection used on aerosol delivery from different nebulizers: An in-vitro study
2021, Pulmonary Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Citation Excerpt :
Variation in MMAD values between nebulizers can be related to the differences in design between each nebulizer [35]. That could be the reason the even though it delivered higher TED there was no significant difference in the FPD, and the FPF [33,34]. Further studies are required to compare continuous and intermittent nebulization within the same JN.
Nebulizers can be divided according to their functional principle into jet, ultrasonic and vibrating mesh nebulizers with intermittent or continuous aerosol delivery and may be used with many different adapters and connections and all can influence their efficiency. The aim of the present work was to evaluate the effect functional principle, delivery technique, and connection used on aerosol delivered from four different nebulizers.
Four nebulizers were used in the study; three of them were jet nebulizers (JNs; AeroEclipse, NebuTech, En ful Kit) and one of them was Aerogen Solo vibrating mesh nebulizers (VMN). AeroEclipse and NebuTech are intermittent output nebulizers, while the rest are continuous output nebulizers. Aerogen Solo was used with either a standard T-piece or Aerogen Ultra holding chamber, and En ful Kit was used with a standard T-piece or Circulaire II holding chamber. 2 ml of salbutamol was nebulized to determine the total emitted dose (TED) and aerodynamic droplet characteristics of the emitted aerosol from the 6 different sets (4 nebulizers with T-piece and 2 holding chambers).
The mean ± SD TED from VMN was significantly higher than all the JNs (p < 0.05). Aerogen Ultra with VMN did not show a significant effect on TED compare to T-piece, but it significantly increased (p < 0.05) fine particle dose (FPD; 3091.5 ± 189.4 μg) and fine particle fraction (FPF; 72.7 ± 3.6%). However, the Circulaire II with En ful Kit had significantly higher TED, FPD, and FPF compared to T-piece (p < 0.05). Intermittent JNs (AeroEclipse and NebuTech) had significantly higher TED (p < 0.05) compared to the continuous JNs (En ful Kit) with no significant effect on the other parameters studied. AeroEclipse had the highest MMAD and Aerogen Solo Ultra has the lowest in MMAD.
The functional principle, delivery technique, and connection used had a significant effect on aerosol delivered from nebulizers. VMNs are significantly better than JNs. Intermittent delivery has significantly better TED than continuous delivery. Holding chamber with both VMNs and JNs improved aerosol delivery compared to standard T-piece.
The ALERTA-2 Guideline. Latin America and Spain: Recommendations for the prevention and treatment of asthma exacerbations
2010, Archivos de Bronconeumologia
Management of Acute Asthma
2008, Pediatric Emergency Medicine
Management of Acute Asthma
2007, Pediatric Emergency Medicine
Continuous bronchodilator therapy
2007, Chest
Inhaled bronchodilators are first-line treatment for acute exacerbations of asthma. Continuous bronchodilator administration is a novel option for the treatment of bronchospasm, which may be more effective than intermittent therapy for patients with severe airflow obstruction. For 2007, coding and billing changes for this modality become effective. This article reviews clinical aspects and outpatient practice management of continuous bronchodilator therapy.
Regular vs ad-lib albuterol for patients hospitalized with acute asthma
2005, Chest
Inhaled, short-acting β-agonists and systemic corticosteroids form the mainstay of therapy in acute asthma exacerbation. Asthma, however, is an inflammatory disease of the airways, and its underlying pathology is not impacted by short-acting β-agonists. While the efficacy of ad-lib β-agonist administration in outpatient management of asthma symptoms is well established, little data exist to support this strategy in patients with acute, severe asthma. We postulate that as long as patients hospitalized with severe asthma exacerbation receive systemic corticosteroids, regular, scheduled administration of short-acting β-agonists is unnecessary. Similar therapeutic outcomes can be achieved with the ad-lib administration of the short-acting β-agonists.
Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Pulmonary floor of a 600-bed municipal hospital.
Sixty-two patients hospitalized for acute asthma.
Patients were randomized to receive either albuterol nebulizations (regular albuterol group) or saline solution nebulizations (ad-lib group) every 4 h with management of breakthrough symptoms with albuterol metered-dose inhaler or nebulizations for both groups. All patients received systemic corticosteroids. Peak expiratory flows, asthma symptoms, and need for rescue bronchodilator were followed up on each patient until discharge.
There was no significant difference in the length of hospitalization (median length, 48 h for ad-lib group vs 57.5 h for regular albuterol group, p = 0.82), rate of improvement in peak flow, or symptoms between the two groups. Ad-lib β-agonist use compared to regular albuterol scheduled use resulted in a significant reduction in the total number of albuterol treatments administered (median, 7 treatments vs 19 treatments, p = 0.001) during hospitalization.
In the management of asthma exacerbation, ad-lib administration of albuterol is therapeutically as effective as regular, scheduled administration. This method of drug administration also reduces the total dose of β-agonists received by the hospitalized patient.

View all citing articles on Scopus

: Presented at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, May 1991.

^†: Dr Spivey died February 19, 1993.

View full text

Original contributionComparison of intermittent and continuously nebulized albuterol for treatment of asthma in an urban emergency department

Study objective:

Design:

Setting:

Type of participants:

Interventions:

Results:

Conclusions:

J Allergy Clin Immunol

Chest

Emergency Drug Therapy

Original contribution
Comparison of intermittent and continuously nebulized albuterol for treatment of asthma in an urban emergency department