Prehospital β₂-agonist administration via spacer versus nebuliser.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Charlotte Dahl Christiansen, Marc Trunjer Kusk Nielsen, Jesper Lolk Søltoft, Erika Frischknecht Christensen, Anne Lund Krarup, Jacob Gamst
{"title":"Prehospital β₂-agonist administration via spacer versus nebuliser.","authors":"Charlotte Dahl Christiansen, Marc Trunjer Kusk Nielsen, Jesper Lolk Søltoft, Erika Frischknecht Christensen, Anne Lund Krarup, Jacob Gamst","doi":"10.61409/A01240041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In 2021, administration of β₂-agonist in the ambulance changed from nebuliser to spacer in the North Denmark Region. We aimed to quantify the effectiveness of the switch by comparing 1) dyspnoea score, 2) median pCO2, pH, and paO2 and 3) vital signs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a quality assessment study including adults treated in the ambulance with a β₂-agonist from 2018 to 2022 in the North Denmark Region. Prehospital vital signs, dyspnoea scores (0-10) and medicine administration data were collected from the electronic prehospital medical record. Blood gas analyses were collected from the clinical laboratory information system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 6,521 patient encounters were included, 70% received β₂-agonist by nebuliser and 30% by spacer. Dyspnoea scores were recorded in 45%, arterial blood gas analysis in 62%. The median (interquartile range) last dyspnoea score was 4 (3-6) in both groups, p = 0.79. The nebuliser group had a higher median paCO2 (6.0 versus 5.8, p less-than 0.001), a lower pH (7.38 versus 7.40, p less-than 0.001), a higher paO2 (9.20 versus 9.00, p less-than 0.001), and a higher last measured mean pulse (99 versus 97, p = 0.001) than the spacer group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients receiving β₂-agonist by spacer had similar relief of dyspnoea as those who received the medicine by nebuliser. Patients using the nebuliser had a higher median paCO2, a lower pH and a higher pulse rate than patients using the spacer.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Hospitals and prehospital administration approval no. 2017-011259. Data collection registration no. K2022-073.</p>","PeriodicalId":11119,"journal":{"name":"Danish medical journal","volume":"71 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Danish medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61409/A01240041","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In 2021, administration of β₂-agonist in the ambulance changed from nebuliser to spacer in the North Denmark Region. We aimed to quantify the effectiveness of the switch by comparing 1) dyspnoea score, 2) median pCO2, pH, and paO2 and 3) vital signs.

Methods: We conducted a quality assessment study including adults treated in the ambulance with a β₂-agonist from 2018 to 2022 in the North Denmark Region. Prehospital vital signs, dyspnoea scores (0-10) and medicine administration data were collected from the electronic prehospital medical record. Blood gas analyses were collected from the clinical laboratory information system.

Results: A total of 6,521 patient encounters were included, 70% received β₂-agonist by nebuliser and 30% by spacer. Dyspnoea scores were recorded in 45%, arterial blood gas analysis in 62%. The median (interquartile range) last dyspnoea score was 4 (3-6) in both groups, p = 0.79. The nebuliser group had a higher median paCO2 (6.0 versus 5.8, p less-than 0.001), a lower pH (7.38 versus 7.40, p less-than 0.001), a higher paO2 (9.20 versus 9.00, p less-than 0.001), and a higher last measured mean pulse (99 versus 97, p = 0.001) than the spacer group.

Conclusions: Patients receiving β₂-agonist by spacer had similar relief of dyspnoea as those who received the medicine by nebuliser. Patients using the nebuliser had a higher median paCO2, a lower pH and a higher pulse rate than patients using the spacer.

Funding: None.

Trial registration: Hospitals and prehospital administration approval no. 2017-011259. Data collection registration no. K2022-073.

院前β 2激动剂通过间隔剂与雾化器给药。
简介:2021年,北丹麦地区救护车中β 2激动剂的使用从雾化器改为间隔剂。我们旨在通过比较1)呼吸困难评分,2)中位pCO2、pH和paO2以及3)生命体征来量化转换的有效性。方法:我们在北丹麦地区进行了一项质量评估研究,包括2018年至2022年在救护车上使用β 2激动剂治疗的成年人。院前生命体征、呼吸困难评分(0-10分)和药物管理数据从院前电子病历中收集。血气分析从临床实验室信息系统收集。结果:共纳入6521例患者,其中70%使用雾化器,30%使用间隔剂。有呼吸困难评分的占45%,动脉血气分析占62%。两组患者末次呼吸困难评分中位数(四分位间距)均为4 (3-6),p = 0.79。雾化器组paCO2中位数较高(6.0 vs . 5.8, p < 0.001), pH值较低(7.38 vs . 7.40, p < 0.001), paO2较高(9.20 vs . 9.00, p < 0.001),末次平均脉搏较高(99 vs . 97, p = 0.001)。结论:β 2受体激动剂间隔剂治疗与雾化器治疗对呼吸困难的缓解效果相似。与使用间隔器的患者相比,使用喷雾器的患者paCO2中位数更高,pH值更低,脉搏率更高。资金:没有。试验注册:医院院前行政审批号。2017 - 011259。资料收集登记号码:k2022 - 073。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Danish medical journal
Danish medical journal MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
78
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Danish Medical Journal (DMJ) is a general medical journal. The journal publish original research in English – conducted in or in relation to the Danish health-care system. When writing for the Danish Medical Journal please remember target audience which is the general reader. This means that the research area should be relevant to many readers and the paper should be presented in a way that most readers will understand the content. DMJ will publish the following articles: • Original articles • Protocol articles from large randomized clinical trials • Systematic reviews and meta-analyses • PhD theses from Danish faculties of health sciences • DMSc theses from Danish faculties of health sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信