{"title":"Assessing the effectiveness of inhalation therapy in patients with chronic airway diseases: A new digital measurement","authors":"Yongyi Peng , Shubing Chen , Zhongping Wu , Junfeng Lin, Jinhai Huang, Xuedong Lei, Peitao Ye, Jinping Zheng, Yi Gao","doi":"10.1016/j.resmer.2024.101095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of inhalation therapy in patients with chronic airway diseases via the use of a new multiparametric inhalation assessment device.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A multiparametric inhalation evaluation device (PF810, UBREATH, Zhejiang, China) that could simulate common inhalation devices with 6 different levels (0-V) of resistance was used in this study. The device was considered suitable if the three parameters of peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR), effective inspiratory time (EIT), and breath-hold time (BHT) after inspiration met the minimum requirements.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 4,559 tests were performed. The qualification rates of 0-V resistance gear from low to high were 3.38 % (I), 8.42 % (0), 15.31 % (II), 16.71 % (III), 20.27 % (IV), and 46.91 % (V). The COPD patients in the 3 experimental groups had the lowest percentages of isolates classified as resistant 0, III, and V, which were 5.65 %, 11.93 %, and 40.43 %, respectively. The lowest percentage was 39.67 % (V) for insufficient EIT and 18.40 % (V) for BHT less than 5 s after inspiration. The results of 149 subjects who had used the inhalation device showed that the VIE and EIT at 0 levels were significantly greater than those before training (<em>Z</em>= -5.651, -5.646, <em>P</em> < 0.001). The VIE and EIT at I-III and V significantly increased after training (all <em>P</em> < 0.05).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Patients using portable inhaler devices do not always inhale with adequate flow patterns. The multiparametric inhalation assessment device may be useful in outpatient settings.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48479,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory Medicine and Research","volume":"86 ","pages":"Article 101095"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory Medicine and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590041224000126","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of inhalation therapy in patients with chronic airway diseases via the use of a new multiparametric inhalation assessment device.
Methods
A multiparametric inhalation evaluation device (PF810, UBREATH, Zhejiang, China) that could simulate common inhalation devices with 6 different levels (0-V) of resistance was used in this study. The device was considered suitable if the three parameters of peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR), effective inspiratory time (EIT), and breath-hold time (BHT) after inspiration met the minimum requirements.
Results
A total of 4,559 tests were performed. The qualification rates of 0-V resistance gear from low to high were 3.38 % (I), 8.42 % (0), 15.31 % (II), 16.71 % (III), 20.27 % (IV), and 46.91 % (V). The COPD patients in the 3 experimental groups had the lowest percentages of isolates classified as resistant 0, III, and V, which were 5.65 %, 11.93 %, and 40.43 %, respectively. The lowest percentage was 39.67 % (V) for insufficient EIT and 18.40 % (V) for BHT less than 5 s after inspiration. The results of 149 subjects who had used the inhalation device showed that the VIE and EIT at 0 levels were significantly greater than those before training (Z= -5.651, -5.646, P < 0.001). The VIE and EIT at I-III and V significantly increased after training (all P < 0.05).
Conclusions
Patients using portable inhaler devices do not always inhale with adequate flow patterns. The multiparametric inhalation assessment device may be useful in outpatient settings.