Comparison of bronchodilator administration with vibrating mesh nebulizer and standard jet nebulizer in the emergency department

Dunne, Robert; Shortt, Sandra

doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2017.10.067

Cited by 34 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…22 The holding chamber significantly increased (P Ͻ .001) the aerosol emitted to double from the Solo. 5 Also, the use of the holding chamber with a jet nebulizer significantly increased (P Ͻ .01) the aerosol emitted to double that of the jet nebulizer-T-piece. These results extended the benefit of the tested holding chamber as an aerosol saver to the jet nebulizer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…24 The Solo-holding chamber resulted in much better delivery than the Pro and the jet nebulizer or even the Solo itself with its T-piece. 5,25 These results might have occurred because the holding chamber studied was designed for the Solo, with which it gives maximum advantage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,2 Inhaled aerosols can be delivered to patients by using nebulizers with different adapters, for example, a T-piece, holding chamber, mouth-piece, or oronasal mask. [3][4][5] A newly designed holding chamber for use with the Aerogen Solo vibrating mesh nebulizer (Aerogen, Galway, Ireland), is designed to improve effectiveness and decrease the loss due to exhalation and condensation. This Solo-holding chamber combination could result in much higher aerosol delivery to patients in need of frequently administered nebulized medication.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This Solo-holding chamber combination could result in much higher aerosol delivery to patients in need of frequently administered nebulized medication. 5,6 However, the high price of the Solo compared with jet nebulizers could be a barrier for some patients. This proposed beneficial effect of the holding chamber with the Solo, in addition to the cost issues, raises a question about the possibility of holding chamber use with a jet nebulizer or design of similar holding chambers for a jet nebulizer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effect of a Nebulizer Holding Chamber on Aerosol Delivery

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effect of a Nebulizer Holding Chamber on Aerosol Delivery

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The long-term use of different types of nebulizers might influence the outcome. Dunne and Shortt reported that use of MN was associated with fewer admissions to the hospital, shorter length of stay in the emergency department, and a reduction in total beta 2 agonist dose [11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mesh nebulizer is as effective as jet nebulizer in clinical practice of acute asthma in children

Soyer¹,

Kahveci²,

Büyüktiryaki³

et al. 2019

Turk J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/aim: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of salbutamol delivered to children by jet nebulizer (JN) and mesh nebulizer (MN). Materials and methods:Children admitted with acute asthma were treated with 3 doses of nebulized salbutamol, 1 given by MN. The patients' vital signs, lung function measurements, modified pulmonary index score (MPIS), and whole body plethysmography (WBP) measurements were evaluated before and 20 min after each dose of salbutamol.Results: Thirty-one children [9.5 (6.4-17.2) years, 67.7% male, 32.3% female] with mild (67.7%) and moderate (32.3%) asthma attacks were included in the study. The improvements with MN were comparable with JN in terms of changes in pretreatment and posttreatment forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) (2.57 ± 4.57, 3.65 ± 5.44; P = 0.44), forced vital capacity (FVC) (2.52 ± 5.29, 4.17 ± 7.54; P = 0.28), heart rate (7.33 ± 10.21, 4.14 ± 9.32; P = 0.24), peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) (0.38 ± 0.23, 0.43 ± 0.15; P = 0.83), and modified pulmonary index score (MPIS) (−6.30 ± 22.70, −8.77 ± 25.46; P = 0.70). The pre-and posttreatment values of total lung capacity (TLC), residual volume (RV), specific conductance (sGaw), and RV/TLC were similar for the JN and MN groups. Adverse effects were not different: however, complaints of palpitation were significantly higher in the posttreatment MN group than the pretreatment MN group (32.3% vs 9.7%, respectively, P = 0.016). Conclusions:These findings support the previous evidence found in studies of adults that MN is as effective as and as safe as JN in the treatment of acute asthma in children.

show abstract