*; Semir Nouira, MD*; Souhail Elatrous, MD; Jalel Knani, MD*; Mohamed Boussarsar, MD*; Fekri Abroug, MD*">
Journal Home
Search for

Volume 36, Issue 3, Pages 198-203 (September 2000)


View previous. 4 of 33 View next.

Continuous Versus Intermittent Nebulization of Salbutamol in Acute Severe Asthma: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Lamia Besbes-Ouanes, MD*, Semir Nouira, MD*, Souhail Elatrous, MD, Jalel Knani, MD*, Mohamed Boussarsar, MD*, Fekri Abroug, MD*

Received 29 October 1999; received in revised form 17 February 2000 and 3 April 2000; accepted 17 May 2000.

Refers to article:
Easier Breathing?
Rita K. Cydulka
Annals of Emergency Medicine
September 2000 (Vol. 36, Issue 3, Pages 236-238)
Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (24 KB)

Abstract 

Study Objective: This study was conducted to compare the clinical and spirometric effects of continuous and intermittent nebulization of salbutamol in acute severe asthma. Methods: Forty-two consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department for acute severe asthma (peak expiratory flow [PEF] mean±SD, 24%±12% predicted) were prospectively randomly assigned to receive 27.5 mg of salbutamol by either continuous or intermittent nebulization over a 6-hour period. The continuous nebulization group received 15 mg of salbutamol during the first hour and 12.5 mg over the next 5 hours. The intermittent nebulization group received 5 mg of salbutamol every 20 minutes during the first hour and 2.5 mg hourly over the next 5 hours. All participants received oxygen and intravenous hydrocortisone. Clinical and spirometric assessment was performed at baseline, 40 minutes, 60 minutes, and at 3 and 6 hours after the start of the nebulization. Secondary endpoints were the respective rates of hospitalization and treatment failure. Results: A significant clinical and spirometric improvement was observed in both groups over baseline as soon as the 40th minute and was sustained thereafter (absolute PEF increase at the sixth hour 30%±18% and 32%±22% in the continuous and intermittent nebulization groups, respectively; P <.01 over baseline). PEF and the clinical score evolved similarly in both groups. There was no difference between the groups regarding the failure rate of the initial bronchodilator treatment to terminate the asthma attack (3 [14%] in the continuous nebulization group and 2 [9.5%] in the intermittent nebulization group, absolute difference 4.5% [95% confidence interval –14% to 23%]). Eight (38%) patients and 9 (43%) patients from the continuous and intermittent nebulization groups, respectively, required hospitalization according to predefined criteria (absolute difference 4.8% [95% confidence interval –24% to 34%]). Conclusion: We did not observe an appreciable difference between continuous and intermittent nebulization of salbutamol in acute severe asthma. The decision to use one of these nebulization methods should be based on logistical considerations. [Besbes-Ouanes L, Nouira S, Elatrous S, Knani J, Boussarsar M, Abroug F. Continuous versus intermittent nebulization of salbutamol in acute severe asthma: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med. September 2000;36:198-203.]

From the Intensive Care Unit* and Emergency Department, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Fattouma Bourguiba, Monastir, Tunisia

 Address for reprints: Fekri Abroug, MD, Intensive Care Unit, CHU F. Bourguiba, Monastir 5000, Tunisia; 216 3 460672, fax 216 3 460678; E-mail f.abroug@rns.tn .

PII: S0196-0644(00)60739-4

doi:10.1067/mem.2000.109169


View previous. 4 of 33 View next.