The inhalation of drugs: advantages and problems

Inhalation is a very old method of drug delivery, and in the 20th century it became a mainstay of respiratory care, known as aerosol therapy. Use of inhaled epinephrine for relief of asthma was reported as early as 1929, in England. An early version of a dry powder inhaler (DPI) was the Aerohalor, used to administer penicillin dust to treat respiratory infections. In the 1950s, the Wright nebulizer was the precursor of the modern hand-held jet-venturi nebulizer. In 1956, the first metered-dose inhaler (MDI) was approved for clinical use, followed by the SpinHaler DPI for cromolyn sodium in 1971. The scientific basis for aerosol therapy developed relatively late, following the 1974 Sugarloaf Conference on the scientific basis of respiratory therapy. Early data on the drug-delivery efficiency of the common aerosol delivery devices (MDI, DPI, and nebulizer) showed lung deposition of approximately 10-15% of the total, nominal dose. Despite problems with low lung deposition with all of the early devices, evidence accumulated that supported the advantages of the inhalation route over other drug-administration routes. Inhaled drugs are localized to the target organ, which generally allows for a lower dose than is necessary with systemic delivery (oral or injection), and thus fewer and less severe adverse effects. The 3 types of aerosol device (MDI, DPI, and nebulizer) can be clinically equivalent. It may be necessary to increase the number of MDI puffs to achieve results equivalent to the larger nominal dose from a nebulizer. Design and lung-deposition improvement of MDIs, DPIs, and nebulizers are exemplified by the new hydrofluoroalkane-propelled MDI formulation of beclomethasone, the metered-dose liquid-spray Respimat, and the DPI system of the Spiros. Differences among aerosol delivery devices create challenges to patient use and caregiver instruction. Potential improvements in aerosol delivery include better standardization of function and patient use, greater reliability, and reduction of drug loss.     

Inhaled bronchodilator administration during mechanical ventilation

Inhaled bronchodilators are routinely administered to mechanically ventilated patients to relieve dyspnea and reverse bronchoconstriction. A lower percentage of the nominal dose reaches the lower respiratory tract in a mechanically ventilated patient than in a nonintubated subject, but attention to device selection, administration technique, dosing, and patient-ventilator interface can increase lower-respiratory-tract deposition in a mechanically ventilated patient. Assessing the airway response to bronchodilator by measuring airway resistance and intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure helps guide dosing and timing of drug delivery. Selecting the optimal aerosol-generating device for a mechanically ventilated patient requires consideration of the ease, reliability, efficacy, safety, and cost of administration. With careful attention to administration technique, bronchodilator via metered-dose inhaler or nebulizer can be safe and effective with mechanically ventilated patients.     

Bronchodilator therapy with metered-dose inhaler and spacer versus nebulizer in mechanically ventilated patients: comparison of magnitude and duration of response

OBJECTIVE: Four-hour comparison of the bronchodilator response of albuterol administered via metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with spacer versus small-volume nebulizer (SVN) to mechanically ventilated patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). DESIGN: Prospective randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Medical intensive care unit in a university hospital. PATIENTS: Thirteen mechanically ventilated COPD patients. INTERVENTION: Albuterol administration of 4 puffs (0.4 mg) or 10 puffs (1.0 mg) via MDI with spacer or 2.5 mg via SVN to mechanically ventilated patients in order to assess the bronchodilator response over 4 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Mechanically ventilated patients were enrolled in a randomized crossover study wherein one group received 4 puffs (0.4 mg) or 2.5 mg of albuterol and another group received 10 puffs (1.0 mg) or 2.5 mg of albuterol on separate days. Respiratory mechanics measurements were obtained over 4 hours. Total airway resistance declined by 14.4 +/- 3.8% after 4 MDI puffs, 18.3 +/- 1.8% after 10 MDI puffs, or 13.7 +/- 2.6% after 2.5 mg via SVN, compared to baseline (p < 0.01). After albuterol delivery, airway resistance remained improved for 90-120 minutes (p < 0.05) and returned to baseline by 4 hours with all treatments. CONCLUSION: The airway response to albuterol administration via MDI and SVN to mechanically ventilated patients was similar in magnitude and duration, returning to baseline by 240 minutes. In stable, mechanically ventilated COPD patients, albuterol may be administered via MDI with spacer or via SVN every 4 hours.     

A day in the life of a nebulizer: surveillance for bacterial growth in nebulizer equipment of children with cystic fibrosis in the hospital setting

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is characterized by chronic lung infection. Minimizing exposure to pathogens is important. Treating a CF pulmonary exacerbation includes nebulizer therapies, but little is known about pathogen exposure from nebulizer equipment in CF. OBJECTIVE: To assess microbial growth in nebulizer equipment used by hospitalized CF patients. HYPOTHESIS: The small-volume nebulizer would not support the growth of the important CF pathogens: Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, and Burkholderia cepacia. METHODS: During a 6-month period, we prospectively enrolled 30 patients who were admitted for pulmonary exacerbation of CF and were prescribed an aerosolized bronchodilator 4 times daily. Bronchodilator was administered via disposable small-volume nebulizer, prior to airway clearance. The nebulizer was not cleaned or disinfected between treatments, but instead was replaced after 24 hours. Sputum or throat cultures were obtained prior to admission or on the day of admission, and standard culture techniques were used for CF microbes. After the first bronchodilator treatment, a sample was taken from the residual fluid inside the nebulizer cup. The second, third, and fourth samples were taken from the nebulizer cup after it was filled with a unit dose of the bronchodilator but prior to administering the bronchodilator. At the 24th hour, the nebulizer was filled with 3 mL of sterile water, from which the fifth sample was obtained, then the nebulizer was disposed of. RESULTS: On respiratory culture, ten patients had Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 5 had both P. aeruginosa and S. aureus, 6 had only S. aureus, and 1 had both S. aureus and H. influenzae. Three had other organisms, 4 had normal flora, and 1 had no culture data. Of the 150 nebulizer sample cultures, only 3 showed bacterial growth. Bacillus species, Corynebacterium, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, and Candida albicans were isolated at low colony counts. CONCLUSIONS: We suspect that the organisms identified were caused by skin contamination of the samples rather than contamination of the nebulizer cup. We conclude that there is a low risk of microbial contamination with CF pathogens from the interior of a disposable nebulizer over a 24 hour period.     

Paradoxical bronchoconstriction with albuterol administered by metered-dose inhaler and nebulizer solution

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of a patient who experienced bronchoconstriction following both a single dose of albuterol via metered-dose inhaler and a subsequent rechallenge with nebulized albuterol and review previously published case reports of albuterol-induced paradoxical bronchoconstriction. CASE SUMMARY: A 92-year-old white man with a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was prescribed an albuterol inhaler for treatment of cold symptoms. Within 30 minutes of his first inhalation, he became short of breath and had difficulty speaking. During emergency department examination for the initial event, the bronchospasm improved with administration of oxygen 15 L/min via a non-rebreather mask. Two hours later, the patient received albuterol via nebulizer and experienced stridor, shortness of breath, and severe bronchospasm. He was admitted, treated with methylprednisolone, and discharged the following day. DISCUSSION: Paradoxical bronchoconstriction is a rare complication of bronchodilator therapy. Although theories have been proposed about components of albuterol solutions and preservatives as causative agents, the true mechanism of the phenomenon remains unknown. Several previous case reports described bronchospasm with albuterol given via tablet, inhaler, and nebulizer. In 2 of these cases, symptoms recurred upon rechallenge; however, none of these cases demonstrates rechallenge using albuterol as both the index and challenge agent. In our patient, paradoxical bronchoconstriction was considered to be probable according to the Naranjo probability scale. CONCLUSIONS: beta(2)-Agonists are generally well-tolerated medications. However, clinicians should remain vigilant in their monitoring of adverse effects so they will be able to provide immediate care and minimize the chance of an unfavorable outcome.     

Bronchodilator delivery with metered-dose inhaler during mechanical ventilation

The delivery of bronchodilators with metered-dose inhaler (MDI) in mechanically ventilated patients has attracted considerable interest in recent years. This is because the use of the MDI has several advantages over the nebulizer, such as reduced cost, ease of administration, less personnel time, reliability of dosing and a lower risk of contamination. A spacer device is fundamental in order to demonstrate the efficacy of the bronchodilatory therapy delivered by MDI. Provided that the technique of administration is appropriate, MDIs are as effective as nebulizers, despite a significantly lower dose of bronchodilator given by the MDI.     

Nebulized bronchodilator formulations: unit-dose or multi-dose?

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial infections linked to the use of multi-dose bronchodilator nebulizer formulations have been reported in the literature. OBJECTIVE: Survey American hospital respiratory therapy services to determine practice patterns, opinions, and awareness regarding unit-dose and multi-dose bronchodilator formulations. METHODS: A quota sample targeted 4 hospital size categories (0-100 beds, 101-200 beds, 201-400 beds, and > 400 beds) using a listing of general medical/surgical hospitals from the American Hospital Association. Hospitals were contacted via telephone to identify the director of respiratory therapy services, who was invited to complete a 29-item Web-based survey of their hospital practices and their opinions about and knowledge of issues with multi-dose and unit-dose bronchodilator formulations. RESULTS: One thousand forty-seven hospitals were recruited and 409 valid surveys were completed (completion rate 39%). The reported mean +/- SD percentage of unit-dose nebulizer treatments was 80.2 +/- 26.2%. Seventy-two percent (296) of respondents indicated having a policy and procedure manual that deals specifically with nebulized bronchodilator solutions, but only 107 reported having internal monitoring guidelines for compliance with those policies and procedures. Multi-dose bottles of bronchodilator concentrate were used with multiple patients in 77% of cases, and on average 9.7 +/- 8.5 patients were treated with the same multi-dose bottle. Eighty-one percent of respondents reported that treatments from multi-dose bottles are prepared at the bedside. The length of time a multi-dose bottle was kept (after being opened) ranged from 24 hours (8%) to 1 month (11%), and only 3% of respondents reported following manufacturers' recommendations. In the respondents' opinion the chief advantage of multi-dose was cost per dose (84%), and the chief advantage of unit-dose was less risk of contamination (92%). With other factors (therapist time, cost of saline diluent for multi-dose concentrate, dose-error, and contamination) considered, 73% thought that unit-dose vials were more cost-effective. Three hundred thirty-six respondents (82%) thought that a sterile, low-volume (0.5 mL) unit-dose vial of bronchodilator concentrate would be useful, and 249 (74%) of those 336 respondents indicated that such a formulation would replace multi-dose bottles. Only 56% of respondents knew about the evidence regarding the risk of contamination with multi-dose bottles. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-dose bottles of bronchodilator solution are used in approximately 20% of nebulizer treatments, and without strict adherence to infection control procedures they are a potential source of nosocomial infection. A sterile, low-volume unit-dose vial of bronchodilator concentrate would be a useful alternative to multi-dose concentrate for modifying doses or mixing drugs in nebulizer therapy.     

Albuterol delivery via tracheostomy tube

HYPOTHESIS: Albuterol delivery through a tracheostomy tube is affected by device (nebulizer vs metered-dose inhaler), interface (mask vs T-piece), bias flow, and humidification. METHODS: A lift bar was placed between the chambers of a dual-chambered lung model such that a ventilator triggered simulated spontaneous breathing at a rate of 20 breaths/min, tidal volume of 0.4 L, and inspiratory-expiratory ratio of 1:2. An 8-mm inner diameter cuffed tracheostomy tube was placed through a semi-circular model that simulated a patient's neck. Four conditions of gas flow and humidification were used for the nebulizer experiments: heated aerosol (approximately 30 L/min, approximately 30 degrees C), heated humidity (approximately 30 L/min, approximately 30 degrees C), high flow without added humidity (approximately 30 L/min), or a nebulizer attached to the tracheostomy tube without additional flow. The nebulizer was filled with 4 mL that contained 2.5 mg of albuterol, and operated at 8 L/min. The nebulizer was tested with a T-piece or tracheostomy mask. For the metered-dose inhaler experiments, a spacer was used and actuation of the inhaler (100 microg per actuation) was synchronized with inhalation (4 actuations separated by > or = 15 s). When the spacer was used without additional flow, a valved T-piece was used with a 1-way valve placed either proximal or distal to the spacer. A filter was attached between the lung model and the distal end of the tracheostomy tube. Albuterol washed from the filter was measured by ultraviolet spectrophotometry. RESULTS: For the nebulizer, the most efficient delivery was with no flow other than that to power the nebulizer and with a T-piece (p < 0.001). The most efficient method for aerosol delivery was metered-dose inhaler with a valved T-piece and placement of the 1-way valve in the proximal position (p < 0.001). The effect of humidity was unclear from the results of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Albuterol delivery via tracheostomy was affected by the delivery device (nebulizer vs inhaler), bias gas flow, and the patient interface.     

Comparison of inhaled metaproterenol via metered-dose and hand-held nebulization in prehospital treatment of bronchospasm

INTRODUCTION: Although the efficacy of the administration of beta-adrenergic bronchodilators has been demonstrated, the best method available for the delivery of these drugs in the prehospital setting has not been defined. This paper compares the effects of administration of metaproterenol when administered by paramedics using either a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) or a hand-held nebulizer (HHN). HYPOTHESIS: There is no difference in the effects produced in patients suffering from smooth bronchiolar muscle spasm by metaproterenol when delivered either by a standard metered-dose inhaler or with a hand-held nebulizer. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive prehospital patients complaining of difficulty breathing with clinical evidence of bronchospasm and with a history of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or emphysema who were not in extremis. METHODS: Prior to the administration of metaproterenol, a peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) was obtained. This measurement was repeated five minutes following the conclusion of the administration of metaproterenol. Patients in Burbank, California, received the treatment using a standard metered-dose inhaler, and those in Madison, Wisconsin, received the drug using a hand-held nebulizer. Peak expiratory flow rates were compared using Student's t-tests with Bonferroni's correction. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Data were collected from 36 consecutive patients by the paramedics of the Burbank Fire Department and from 32 consecutive patients by the paramedics of the Madison Fire Department. For the metered-dose inhaler group, the mean value for peak expiratory flow rate for the pre-treatment test was 95.4 +/- 88.1 l/min, and after treatment was 109.4 +/- 89.3 l/min (p < 0.001). For the hand-held nebulizer group, the mean value for peak expiratory flow rate before the administration of the metaproterenol was 96.1 +/- 76.3 l/min and following the treatment was 149.1 +/- 92.9 l/min (p < 0.001). The mean values for the differences between the control peak expiratory flow rate and the post-treatment peak expiratory flow rate for the metered-dose inhaler group was + 140.0 +/- 27.4 l/min, and for the hand-held nebulizer group was + 53.0 +/- 69.1 l/min (p < 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In the prehospital setting, the administration of metaproterenol using a hand-held nebulizer is more effective than delivering the drug using a metered-dose inhaler. The hand-held nebulizer is easier to use and delivers a higher dose of the drug than is convenient using the metered-dose inhaler.     

A survey of albuterol administration practices in intubated patients in the neonatal intensive care unit.

INTRODUCTION: Aerosolized albuterol is commonly used in the treatment of neonatal respiratory illnesses. Clinical and in vitro studies have identified numerous factors that affect aerosol drug delivery during neonatal mechanical ventilation, including the choice of metered-dose inhaler (MDI) or nebulizer, the use of a holding chamber, time between actuations, the volume of nebulized solution, and the position and placement of the nebulizer or MDI. Because there is no consensus on the optimal method of administration, there is probably substantial variability among institutions in how aerosolized albuterol is administered to mechanically ventilated infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). OBJECTIVE: Survey academic medical centers in the United States regarding their practices of administering aerosolized albuterol to intubated newborns in the NICU. METHODS: A survey instrument was developed that queried 18 aspects of albuterol administration in mechanically ventilated infants, including the frequency of MDI and nebulizer use, the average and maximum dose, the time between MDI actuations and following the final actuation, the use of a holding chamber, and the placement location of the holding chamber or nebulizer. Respiratory therapists and respiratory therapy managers having direct knowledge of neonatal clinical practices in their neonatal fellowship program NICUs were surveyed via telephone. Those who did not respond via telephone were surveyed via fax. RESULTS: Eighty institutions were surveyed and there were 68 respondents (85% response rate). Responders averaged 35 +/- 13 NICU beds and 11 +/- 5 ventilators/d. Nineteen percent of the respondents reported administering albuterol via MDI 100% of the time; 22% use MDIs 75-99% of the time; 9% use MDIs 50-74% of the time; 4% use MDIs 25-49% of the time; and 43% never use MDIs to deliver albuterol. The average dose via MDI was: 1 puff: 30%; 2 puffs: 65%; and 4 puffs: 5%. The maximum dose via MDI was: 2 puffs: 30%; 3 puffs: 14%; 4 puffs: 36%; 6 puffs: 11%; and 8 puffs: 6%. Thirty-one percent of the respondents place the holding chamber in-line with the ventilator circuit, 56% administer the aerosol via manual ventilation, and 13% use both methods. Fifty-six percent place the in-line holding chamber between the endotracheal tube and ventilator circuit, and the other 44% place the in-line holding chamber in the inspiratory limb. The time between MDI actuations depended on whether the holding chamber was placed in-line or the aerosol was administered via manual ventilation (MV): < or = 0.5 min: 18% in-line and 28% MV; 1 min: 47% in-line and 43% MV; 2 min: 6% in-line and 4% MV; 3 min: 6% in-line and 0% MV. Eighty-three percent of respondents indicated that dead space introduced by a holding chamber/spacer was not a concern. Forty-three percent use nebulizers exclusively to administer albuterol to mechanically ventilated patients. Seventy-four percent of centers that nebulize albuterol use a dose of 1.25-2.5 mg. Eighty-eight percent of the surveyed institutions place nebulizers in-line with the ventilator circuit, and the other 12% use manual ventilation to administer the nebulized aerosol. Of those that use in-line nebulization, 95% place the nebulizer in the inspiratory limb of the circuit, and the other 5% place the nebulizer between the endotracheal tube and circuit Y-piece. Among centers that place the nebulizer in the inspiratory limb, 52% place it adjacent to the circuit Y-piece, 36% place it midway upstream in the inspiratory limb, and 12% place it near the humidifier. CONCLUSION: There is substantial variability among NICUs in albuterol administration to mechanically ventilated infants, with the majority of institutions now administering albuterol via MDI.     

Cost comparison of bronchodilator delivery methods in Emergency Department treatment of asthma

Various methods of bronchodilator delivery are used in the Emergency Department, with similar efficacy. Our goal was to compare the costs of intermittent updraft nebulization, continuous nebulization, and metered-dose inhaler with spacer. Comparison was made for an average 1-h treatment. Material costs to the hospital were ascertained, and labor costs were estimated from salary and time studies in our urban community hospital. In this setting, the total cost for intermittent updraft nebulization was $11.66 for 1 h (three treatments). Cost for continuous nebulization was $9.66. Metered-dose inhaler with spacer had a cost of $15.45 for 1 h (three treatments). For the Emergency Department treatment of asthma, continuous nebulization may be a less costly method of bronchodilator delivery.     

Problems with inhaler use: a call for improved clinician and patient education

Patient education is a critical factor in the use and misuse of medication inhalers. Inhalers represent advanced technology that is considered so easy to use that many patients and clinicians do not receive adequate training in their use. Between 28% and 68% of patients do not use metered-dose inhalers or powder inhalers well enough to benefit from the prescribed medication, and 39-67% of nurses, doctors, and respiratory therapists are unable to adequately describe or perform critical steps for using inhalers. Of an estimated 25 billion dollars spent for inhalers annually, 5-7 billion dollars is wasted because of inhaler misuse. Reimbursement and teaching strategies to improve patient education could substantially reduce these wasted resources. Problems with inhaler use, the cost of inhalers, and myths associated with inhalers are reviewed, with recommendations for strategies and techniques to better educate patients in inhaler use.     

Effectiveness of budesonide administered via dry-powder inhaler versus triamcinolone acetonide administered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler for adults with persistent asthma in managed care settings

BACKGROUND: Clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy and relative safety of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of asthma. However, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness comparisons of available inhaled corticosteroids in real-life clinical settings are lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effectiveness and safety of budesonide administered via dry-powder inhaler versus that of triamcinolone acetonide administered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler in the treatment of adult patients with persistent asthma treated in a managed care setting. METHODS: This was a randomized, open-labe, 52-week study of adult patients (aged >or= 18 years) with persistent asthma enrolled in 25 US health plans. The primary study outcome was mean change from baseline to the end of treatment in symptom-free days. Secondary variables were changes from baseline in number of episode-free days, episode-free days at 52 weeks, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), forced vital capacity, asthma symptom scores, breakthrough bronchdilator use, patient discontinuations, and health-related quality of life. Patients were issued diaries in which to record use of study medication and concomitant asthma medication use, as well as daytime and nighttime asthma symptom severity. Patients were assessed at weeks 4, 13, 26, 39, and 52. Safety was assessed based on adverse events and changes in laboratory tests, vital signs, and physical examinations. RESULTS: A total of 945 patients (344 men, 601 women; mean [SD] age, 46.8 [14] years) were enrolled; 631 received budesonide and 314 received triacinolane acetonide. Improvements in all effectiveness variables were observed with both treatments. The mean increase from baseline in the number of symptom-free days per month assessed at month 12 was 7.74 (95% CI, 6.81-8.66) for patients receiving budesonide and 3.78 (95% CI, 2.47-5.09) for patients receiving triamcinoline acetonide ( P<0.001). The estimated annual mean (SD) number symptom-free days for patients receiving budesonide was 141.1 (125.0) over the treatment phase, compared with 99.3 (112.1) for those receiving triamcinolone acetonide (P<0.001). Patients receiving budesonide demonstrated significant improvements (compared with those receiving triamcinolone acetonide) in overall quality of life, daytime and nighttime asthma symptom severity, breakthrough bronchodilator use, and FEV(1) (all P<0.001). Safety measures were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: In these managed care settings, budesonide inhalation powder administered via dry-powder inhaler was significantly more effective than triamcinolone acetonide administered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler in the treatment of adults with persistent asthma.     

Efficacy and safety of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate delivered via a hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler in Chinese patients with moderate asthma poorly controlled with inhaled corticosteroids

A randomised, open-label, multicentre study compared the efficacy and tolerability of salmeterol 25 microg/fluticasone propionate 125 microg (two puffs, twice daily) delivered via a hydrofluoroalkane metered-dose inhaler (HFA-MDI) and salmeterol 50microg/fluticasone propionate 250 microg (one puff, twice daily) delivered via a Diskus inhaler in Chinese patients with moderate asthma uncontrolled with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). Morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) was the primary efficacy endpoint. Secondary endpoints included evening PEF, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, day and night symptom scores, rescue medication and patient self-evaluation of efficacy. Safety was assessed according to adverse events recorded. Both treatments were equipotent and significantly improved morning PEF (HFA-MDI 40 l/min; Diskus 42 l/min; p < 0.05) and all secondary endpoints (p < 0.05) from baseline, over 1-4 weeks. Similarly, both treatments were well tolerated. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate delivered via an HFA-MDI or Diskus inhaler provides a choice of efficacious delivery systems in Chinese patients whose asthma is poorly controlled on ICSs alone.     

Review of a bronchial hygiene evaluation program.

In the 1970s the demand in our hospital for bronchial hygiene therapy (aerosols, IPPB, incentive spirometry, chest physical therapy) had increased to such a level that 20-30% of the ordered therapy was not being administered. Because the respiratory therapists and medical directors were convinced that much of the ordered therapy was unnecessary, the Respiratory Therapy Department began a program in 1978 in which specially trained respiratory therapists were authorized to evaluate all non-intensive-care patients for whom bronchial hygiene therapy had been ordered. The program protocol consists of a medical record review, a physical assessment of the patient, the development of a patient-care plan, and a re-evaluation every 2-3 days of the patient's continued need for therapy. We found that initiation of the program has led to improved documentation of the need for bronchial hygiene therapy and a significant decrease in total procedures performed, not merely a substitution of therapies. After being adjusted to the 1981 Consumer Price Index (CPI), total charges for bronchial hygiene therapy were markedly decreased even though hospital charges increased 77.4% above the CPI inflation rate. Since the program was begun, the respiratory therapy staff has been able to administer all ordered respiratory care services to patients in a critical care setting and not less than 90% of ordered bronchial hygiene therapy to patients outside the intensive care unit. House staff, attending physicians, and patients and their families appear to be satisfied with the therapist-evaluators, and the morale of respiratory therapists seems to have improved as a result of their being able to take a more role in the treatment of their patients and to apply their skills to the patients most in need of them.     

Inhaler and spacer use in obstructive airway diseases

The role of inhaled aerosols in the treatment of obstructive airway diseases is increasing for both immediate bronchodilation and prophylactic anti-inflammatory effects. Inhaled aerosol agents are available in metered-dose inhaler and nebulizer forms. Maximum therapeutic benefit from metered-dose inhalers is assured when the correct inhaler technique is used. Spacer devices may be helpful in some patients.     

An assessment of the appropriateness of respiratory care delivered at a 450-bed acute care Veterans affairs hospital

INTRODUCTION: Respiratory care is expensive and time-intensive, inappropriate care wastes resources, and failure to provide necessary and appropriate respiratory care may adversely affect patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the appropriateness of basic respiratory care delivered at a 450-bed Veterans Affairs hospital during a 3-month interval. METHODS: We determined (1) the percentage of delivered respiratory care that was not indicated (based on standardized clinical practice guidelines), (2) the percentage of respiratory care that was indicated but not ordered (based on standardized clinical practice guidelines), and (3) the labor cost and potential savings of protocol-based respiratory care at our hospital. We selected 5 assessment days, occurring at 2-week intervals. All patients who received basic respiratory care underwent a complete respiratory care assessment, including medical records review, patient interview, physical assessment, and measurement of blood oxygen saturation (via pulse oximetry) and inspiratory capacity. Intensive care patients were excluded from the study. The assessment instrument provided a standardized format based on American Association for Respiratory Care clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: We assessed 75 patients. A mean of 24.8% of the delivered respiratory therapies reviewed were not indicated. The percentages of ordered but not indicated therapies were: oxygen 17.7%; all categories of aerosolized medications (bronchodilators, mucolytics, anti-inflammatory agents) 32.4%; chest physiotherapy 37.5%; lung expansion therapy 7.7%. A mean of 11.8% of the patients assessed were not receiving respiratory care that was indicated. The percentages of indicated but not ordered therapies were: oxygen 5.3%; bronchodilator 5.3%; lung expansion therapy 36%. CONCLUSION: A mean of 24.8% of the basic respiratory care procedures delivered were not indicated and 11.8% of patients were not receiving care that was indicated. Inappropriate utilization of respiratory care services may increase costs and adversely affect morbidity, mortality, and duration of stay. We believe that implementation of respiratory care assessment protocols based on nationally accepted clinical practice guidelines can reduce unnecessary care, optimize care delivered, and may reduce costs and improve outcomes.     

The efficacy of metered-dose inhalers with a spacer device in the pediatric setting

PURPOSE: To systematically review the published research and report on the efficacy of using a metered-dose inhaler with a spacer (MDI-S) device in a pediatric setting to treat acute exacerbations of asthma. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted on the CINAHL, Medline, and Cochrane databases; additional searches were made by hand from the reference lists in each study retrieved from databases and from review articles written on the same topic. CONCLUSION: This critical appraisal of the research demonstrates the MDI-S is as effective as the nebulizer, faster in the delivery of medication, and cost-effective. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: No significant difference between the MDI-S and nebulizer in delivering medication in an acute exacerbation of asthma was found in this analysis. The practitioner's choice of delivery methods should reflect the family's preference, the practice situation, and economic considerations.     

Comparing clinical features of the nebulizer, metered-dose inhaler, and dry powder inhaler

Topically inhaled bronchodilators and corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These medications are delivered via jet or ultrasonic nebulizer, metered-dose inhaler (MDI), or dry powder inhaler (DPI). While the number of devices may be confusing to patients and clinicians, each device has distinct advantages and disadvantages. Most clinical evidence shows that any of these devices will work for most situations, including exacerbations and in the stable outpatient setting. There is a high rate of errors in device use with all these devices, especially the MDI. In choosing a drug/device combination for a patient, the clinician must take into account several factors, including the cognitive and physical ability of the patient, ease of use, convenience, costs, and patient preferences. Clinicians should also have a rudimentary understanding of aerosol principles in order to be able to teach appropriate use of aerosol devices to their patients.     

Retrospective study of bitolterol mesylate in the treatment of conditions associated with reversible bronchospasm

Patients with reversible bronchospasm benefit from the use of inhaled beta-adrenergic agents. In this retrospective study of 24 older patients with a variety of conditions associated with reversible bronchospasm--asthma, asthma with emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and asthmatic bronchitis--symptomatic improvement was noted after treatment with inhaled bitolterol mesylate. Symptoms resolved or improved after 1 month in 93.8% (15/16) of patients using a metered-dose inhaler and in 75% (6/8) of those using a hand-held nebulizer. Sixteen additional patients were randomly selected to undergo pulmonary function tests after receiving two to three puffs of bitolterol from a metered-dose inhaler. FEV1 improved by 10.9%, FVC by 12.1%, and FEF25%-75% by 34.4% after administration of bitolterol. No adverse events were noted in any patients in either group. The results of this retrospective study suggest that bitolterol is an effective and safe treatment in patients with conditions associated with reversible bronchospasm.