Article

Holding chambers (spacers) versus nebulisers for beta-agonist treatment of acute asthma

Bushey Health Centre, Manor View Practice, London Road, Bushey, Watford, Hertfordshire, UK, WD23 2NN.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 02/2006; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000052.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In acute asthma inhaled beta2-agonists are often administered to relieve bronchospasm by wet nebulisation, but some have argued that metered-dose inhalers with a holding chamber (spacer) can be equally effective. Nebulisers require a power source and need regular maintenance, and are more expensive in the community setting.
To assess the effects of holding chambers (spacers) compared to nebulisers for the delivery of beta2-agonists for acute asthma.
We last searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in January 2006 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2005).
Randomised trials in adults and children (from two years of age) with asthma, where spacer beta2-agonist delivery was compared with wet nebulisation.
Two reviewers independently applied study inclusion criteria (one reviewer for the first version of the review), extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Missing data were obtained from the authors or estimated. Results are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
This review has been updated in January 2006 and four new trials have been added. 2066 children and 614 adults are now included in 25 trials from emergency room and community settings. In addition, six trials on in-patients with acute asthma (213 children and 28 adults) have been reviewed. Method of delivery of beta2-agonist did not appear to affect hospital admission rates. In adults, the relative risk of admission for spacer versus nebuliser was 0.97 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.49). The relative risk for children was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.4 to 1.06). In children, length of stay in the emergency department was significantly shorter when the spacer was used, with a mean difference of -0.47 hours (95% CI: -0.58 to -0.37). Length of stay in the emergency department for adults was similar for the two delivery methods. Peak flow and forced expiratory volume were also similar for the two delivery methods. Pulse rate was lower for spacer in children, mean difference -7.6% baseline (95% CI: -9.9 to -5.3% baseline).
Metered-dose inhalers with spacer produced outcomes that were at least equivalent to nebuliser delivery. Spacers may have some advantages compared to nebulisers for children with acute asthma.

3 Followers
 · 
444 Views
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) or clinic with acute exacerbation of asthma (AEA) can be very challenging varying in both severity and response to therapy. High-dose, frequent or continuous nebulized short-acting beta2 agonist (SABA) therapy that can be combined with a short-acting muscarinic antagonist (SAMA) is the backbone of treatment. When patients do not rapidly clinically respond to SABA/SAMA inhalation, the early use of oral or parenteral corticosteroids should be considered and has been shown to impact the immediate need for ICU admission or even the need for hospital admission. Adjunctive therapies such as the use of intravenous magnesium and helium/oxygen combination gas for inhalation and for driving a nebulizer to deliver a SABA and or SAMA should be considered and are best used early in the treatment plan if they are likely to impact the patients' clinical course. The use of other agents such as theophylline, leukotriene modifiers, inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting beta2 agonist, and long-acting muscarinic antagonist currently does not play a major role in the immediate treatment of AEA in the clinic or the ED but is an important therapeutic option for physicians to be aware of and to consider initiating at the time of discharge from clinic, hospital, or ED to reduce later clinical worsening and readmission to the ED and hospital. A comprehensive summary is provided of the currently available respiratory pharmaceuticals approved for asthma and other airway syndromes. Clinicians must be prepared to use the entire spectrum of medications available for the treatment of acute asthma exacerbations and the agents that should be initiated to prevent worsening or additional exacerbations. They need to be familiar with the major potential drug toxicities associated with their use.
    Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology 09/2014; 48(1). DOI:10.1007/s12016-014-8448-5 · 4.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Asthma is a prevalent chronic disease of the respiratory system and acute asthma exacerbations are among the most common causes of presentation to the emergency department (ED) and admission to hospital particularly in children. Bronchial airways infl ammation is the most prominent pathological feature of asthma. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), through their anti-infl ammatory effects have been the mainstay of treatment of asthma for many years. Systemic and ICS are also used in the treatment of acute asthma exacerbations. Several international asthma management guidelines recommend the use of systemic corticosteroids in the management of moderate to severe acute asthma early upon presentation to the ED. On the other hand, ICS use in the management acute asthma has been studied in different contexts with encouraging results in some and negative in others. This review sheds some light on the role of systemic and ICS in the management of acute asthma and discusses the current evidence behind their different ways of application particularly in relation to new developments in the fi eld.
    Annals of Thoracic Medicine 03/2014; 9(4):187-192. DOI:10.4103/1817-1737.140120 · 1.34 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
85 Downloads
Available from
Jun 4, 2014