These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The efficacy of nebulized albuterol/ipratropium bromide versus albuterol alone in the prehospital treatment of suspected reactive airways disease.
    Author: Davis DP, Wiesner C, Chan TC, Vilke GM.
    Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care; 2005; 9(4):386-90. PubMed ID: 16263670.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Ipratropium bromide has demonstrated efficacy when added to albuterol for the treatment of reactive airways disease (RAD). Its prehospital use has not been explored. METHODS: A before-and-after design was used. Prehospital and emergency department (ED) medical records were examined retrospectively six months before and six months after institution of a new protocol, which allowed the addition of ipratropium bromide to all nebulized treatments with albuterol. Primary outcome measures included: changes in vital signs (heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation), clinical improvement as assessed by paramedics, and admission rates. RESULTS: A total of 371 patients were included (n = 192 albuterol alone, n = 179 ipratropium/albuterol). There was no statistically significant difference between groups with regard to the change in heart rate, respiratory rate, or oxygen saturation. In addition, there was no difference in the proportion of patients with clinical improvement or deterioration as assessed by paramedics. There was no statistically significant difference in the admission rate from the ED except in the subgroup of patients using a metered-dose inhaler at the time of illness. Of note, more than one-third (133/371) of the patients were ultimately determined to have a diagnosis other than RAD, the majority of whom were diagnosed as having cardiac disease. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ipratropium bromide to albuterol for the prehospital treatment of RAD does not appear to result in clinical outcome improvements. A substantial number of patients enrolled in the study were diagnosed as having cardiac disease.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]