Clinical Efficacy of Vibrating Mesh and Jet Nebulizers With Different Interfaces in Pediatric Subjects With Asthma

Nebulizers are commonly used in emergency departments to deliver bronchodilators to children with asthma exacerbations. However, no clinical study comparing a vibrating mesh nebulizer with a jet nebulizer is available in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical...

Celý popis

Uložené v:
Podrobná bibliografia
Vydané v:Respiratory care Ročník 65; číslo 10; s. 1451
Hlavní autori: Moody, Gerald B, Luckett, Peter M, Shockley, Courtney M, Huang, Rong, Ari, Arzu
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:English
Vydavateľské údaje: United States 01.10.2020
Predmet:
ISSN:1943-3654, 1943-3654
On-line prístup:Zistit podrobnosti o prístupe
Tagy: Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
Abstract Nebulizers are commonly used in emergency departments to deliver bronchodilators to children with asthma exacerbations. However, no clinical study comparing a vibrating mesh nebulizer with a jet nebulizer is available in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of a vibrating mesh nebulizer to a jet nebulizer combined with a mouthpiece or mask in children with asthma exacerbations admitted to the emergency department. We conducted a single-blinded randomized clinical trial of 217 children (2-18 y old) with a moderate to severe asthma exacerbation in the emergency department. Assessment of severity was defined by our acute asthma score, adapted from the Pediatric Asthma Score. Subjects were randomized to receive bronchodilator treatment via vibrating mesh nebulizer ( = 108) or jet nebulizer ( 109) and were treated until they achieved a mild asthma score and were discharged or until a decision to admit was made. All subjects were treated per our acute asthma clinical pathway algorithm for the emergency department with modifications to allow for blinding, assessment of treatment, and data collection. Outcome variables included hospital admission rate, number of treatments, and time to mild asthma score. There was a significant difference in baseline asthma score between subjects treated with the vibrating mesh nebulizer and those treated with the jet nebulizer ( = .042), but no other significant differences in demographics existed between groups. To adjust for effect of baseline asthma score, a multiple logistic regression model was used to model admission. The vibrating mesh nebulizer group had a lower probability of being admitted to the hospital ( = .062), and they required significantly fewer treatments ( < .001) and less time to reach a mild asthma score ( = .004) than those in the jet nebulizer group. In subjects with a mask interface, the vibrating mesh nebulizer significantly reduced the probability of admission ( = .032). Subjects treated with a vibrating mesh nebulizer required significantly fewer treatments and less time to achieve a mild asthma score. In subjects with a mask interface, the vibrating mesh nebulizer significantly reduced the probability of admission compared to jet nebulizer. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02774941.).
AbstractList Nebulizers are commonly used in emergency departments to deliver bronchodilators to children with asthma exacerbations. However, no clinical study comparing a vibrating mesh nebulizer with a jet nebulizer is available in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of a vibrating mesh nebulizer to a jet nebulizer combined with a mouthpiece or mask in children with asthma exacerbations admitted to the emergency department. We conducted a single-blinded randomized clinical trial of 217 children (2-18 y old) with a moderate to severe asthma exacerbation in the emergency department. Assessment of severity was defined by our acute asthma score, adapted from the Pediatric Asthma Score. Subjects were randomized to receive bronchodilator treatment via vibrating mesh nebulizer ( = 108) or jet nebulizer ( 109) and were treated until they achieved a mild asthma score and were discharged or until a decision to admit was made. All subjects were treated per our acute asthma clinical pathway algorithm for the emergency department with modifications to allow for blinding, assessment of treatment, and data collection. Outcome variables included hospital admission rate, number of treatments, and time to mild asthma score. There was a significant difference in baseline asthma score between subjects treated with the vibrating mesh nebulizer and those treated with the jet nebulizer ( = .042), but no other significant differences in demographics existed between groups. To adjust for effect of baseline asthma score, a multiple logistic regression model was used to model admission. The vibrating mesh nebulizer group had a lower probability of being admitted to the hospital ( = .062), and they required significantly fewer treatments ( < .001) and less time to reach a mild asthma score ( = .004) than those in the jet nebulizer group. In subjects with a mask interface, the vibrating mesh nebulizer significantly reduced the probability of admission ( = .032). Subjects treated with a vibrating mesh nebulizer required significantly fewer treatments and less time to achieve a mild asthma score. In subjects with a mask interface, the vibrating mesh nebulizer significantly reduced the probability of admission compared to jet nebulizer. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02774941.).
Nebulizers are commonly used in emergency departments to deliver bronchodilators to children with asthma exacerbations. However, no clinical study comparing a vibrating mesh nebulizer with a jet nebulizer is available in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of a vibrating mesh nebulizer to a jet nebulizer combined with a mouthpiece or mask in children with asthma exacerbations admitted to the emergency department.BACKGROUNDNebulizers are commonly used in emergency departments to deliver bronchodilators to children with asthma exacerbations. However, no clinical study comparing a vibrating mesh nebulizer with a jet nebulizer is available in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of a vibrating mesh nebulizer to a jet nebulizer combined with a mouthpiece or mask in children with asthma exacerbations admitted to the emergency department.We conducted a single-blinded randomized clinical trial of 217 children (2-18 y old) with a moderate to severe asthma exacerbation in the emergency department. Assessment of severity was defined by our acute asthma score, adapted from the Pediatric Asthma Score. Subjects were randomized to receive bronchodilator treatment via vibrating mesh nebulizer (n = 108) or jet nebulizer (n = 109) and were treated until they achieved a mild asthma score and were discharged or until a decision to admit was made. All subjects were treated per our acute asthma clinical pathway algorithm for the emergency department with modifications to allow for blinding, assessment of treatment, and data collection. Outcome variables included hospital admission rate, number of treatments, and time to mild asthma score.METHODSWe conducted a single-blinded randomized clinical trial of 217 children (2-18 y old) with a moderate to severe asthma exacerbation in the emergency department. Assessment of severity was defined by our acute asthma score, adapted from the Pediatric Asthma Score. Subjects were randomized to receive bronchodilator treatment via vibrating mesh nebulizer (n = 108) or jet nebulizer (n = 109) and were treated until they achieved a mild asthma score and were discharged or until a decision to admit was made. All subjects were treated per our acute asthma clinical pathway algorithm for the emergency department with modifications to allow for blinding, assessment of treatment, and data collection. Outcome variables included hospital admission rate, number of treatments, and time to mild asthma score.There was a significant difference in baseline asthma score between subjects treated with the vibrating mesh nebulizer and those treated with the jet nebulizer (P = .042), but no other significant differences in demographics existed between groups. To adjust for effect of baseline asthma score, a multiple logistic regression model was used to model admission. The vibrating mesh nebulizer group had a lower probability of being admitted to the hospital (P = .062), and they required significantly fewer treatments (P < .001) and less time to reach a mild asthma score (P = .004) than those in the jet nebulizer group. In subjects with a mask interface, the vibrating mesh nebulizer significantly reduced the probability of admission (P = .032).RESULTSThere was a significant difference in baseline asthma score between subjects treated with the vibrating mesh nebulizer and those treated with the jet nebulizer (P = .042), but no other significant differences in demographics existed between groups. To adjust for effect of baseline asthma score, a multiple logistic regression model was used to model admission. The vibrating mesh nebulizer group had a lower probability of being admitted to the hospital (P = .062), and they required significantly fewer treatments (P < .001) and less time to reach a mild asthma score (P = .004) than those in the jet nebulizer group. In subjects with a mask interface, the vibrating mesh nebulizer significantly reduced the probability of admission (P = .032).Subjects treated with a vibrating mesh nebulizer required significantly fewer treatments and less time to achieve a mild asthma score. In subjects with a mask interface, the vibrating mesh nebulizer significantly reduced the probability of admission compared to jet nebulizer. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02774941.).CONCLUSIONSSubjects treated with a vibrating mesh nebulizer required significantly fewer treatments and less time to achieve a mild asthma score. In subjects with a mask interface, the vibrating mesh nebulizer significantly reduced the probability of admission compared to jet nebulizer. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02774941.).
Author Luckett, Peter M
Shockley, Courtney M
Moody, Gerald B
Ari, Arzu
Huang, Rong
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Gerald B
  surname: Moody
  fullname: Moody, Gerald B
  email: gerald.moody@childrens.com
  organization: Department of Respiratory Care, Children's Health - Children's Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. gerald.moody@childrens.com
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Peter M
  surname: Luckett
  fullname: Luckett, Peter M
  organization: Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Courtney M
  surname: Shockley
  fullname: Shockley, Courtney M
  organization: Department of Emergency Medicine, Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, UT Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Rong
  surname: Huang
  fullname: Huang, Rong
  organization: Research Administration, Children's Health - Children's Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
– sequence: 5
  givenname: Arzu
  surname: Ari
  fullname: Ari, Arzu
  organization: Department of Respiratory Care, Texas State University, Round Rock, Texas
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32209712$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNpNkDtPwzAYRS1URB-wMiKPLCl-xUnGqhQoKg-J1xg5zmfqKnGK7Qzl11OJIjGdMxzd4Y7RwHUOEDqnZCponl15CFutPExJlvL8CI1oIXjCZSoG_3yIxiFsCGFSpMUJGnLGSJFRNkJ-3lhntWrwwpg99Q53Br_byqto3Sd-gLDGytX4HiJ-hKpv7Df4gD9sXONrawx4cBEvXQRvlIaArcPPUFsVvdX4pa82oOOhn4W4btUpOjaqCXB24AS93Sxe53fJ6ul2OZ-tEi1kERNmhMi5AkkkZ4JymQGFvBYZ1ExTkVNdgZE1Ncpk2khhKkhJUdREA9tryibo8nd367uvHkIsWxs0NI1y0PWhZDznKSUFyffpxSHtqxbqcuttq_yu_PuJ_QDvnG3h
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1111_pan_14354
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_sna_2024_116009
crossref_primary_10_3390_s22207891
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_emc_2025_06_015
crossref_primary_10_1080_17476348_2024_2361048
crossref_primary_10_1097_MCP_0000000000000941
crossref_primary_10_1111_nicc_12774
crossref_primary_10_3389_fped_2023_1258846
crossref_primary_10_1097_pq9_0000000000000814
crossref_primary_10_1183_23120541_00027_2021
crossref_primary_10_1186_s10033_021_00635_7
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijpharm_2023_122695
crossref_primary_10_1177_17511437231199899
crossref_primary_10_1097_PEC_0000000000003372
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jconrel_2025_01_017
crossref_primary_10_3390_atmos14101509
crossref_primary_10_1080_14740338_2022_1999926
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jconrel_2022_10_052
crossref_primary_10_1080_17476348_2023_2183194
crossref_primary_10_4187_respcare_10980
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejps_2023_106474
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_rmed_2025_107966
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright Copyright © 2020 by Daedalus Enterprises.
Copyright_xml – notice: Copyright © 2020 by Daedalus Enterprises.
DBID CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7X8
DOI 10.4187/respcare.07538
DatabaseName Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitle MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE
MEDLINE - Academic
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: 7X8
  name: MEDLINE - Academic
  url: https://search.proquest.com/medline
  sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod no_fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
Pharmacy, Therapeutics, & Pharmacology
EISSN 1943-3654
ExternalDocumentID 32209712
Genre Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
GroupedDBID ---
.GJ
04C
0R~
123
1KJ
29P
36B
53G
5VS
6AZ
6PF
8RF
AAQQT
AAWTL
AAYJJ
ACBNA
ACCJX
ADBBV
ADOJX
AENEX
AFFNX
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
BMSDO
BTFSW
CGR
CUY
CVF
EBD
EBS
ECM
ECT
EIF
EIHBH
EJD
F5P
H13
HW5
INR
JXZBJ
MJL
N4W
NPM
OHT
OK1
PV9
RHI
RML
RZL
SJN
WH7
WHG
XOL
XZL
YJK
YOJ
YQI
YQJ
ZXP
7X8
BAIFH
BBTPI
J8X
SAUOL
SCNPE
SFC
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c469t-2f4483ae6063241367e1e8d47ed2c1481cbef6d1faf7cf64fbe5099d0ce2be552
IEDL.DBID 7X8
ISICitedReferencesCount 24
ISICitedReferencesURI http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000574672900006&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
ISSN 1943-3654
IngestDate Sun Nov 09 13:47:20 EST 2025
Mon Jul 21 06:00:44 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess false
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 10
Keywords vibrating mesh nebulizers
aerosols
children
severe
albuterol
jet nebulizer
emergency department
pediatric asthma
moderate
Language English
License Copyright © 2020 by Daedalus Enterprises.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c469t-2f4483ae6063241367e1e8d47ed2c1481cbef6d1faf7cf64fbe5099d0ce2be552
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
OpenAccessLink http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/respcare/65/10/1451.full.pdf
PMID 32209712
PQID 2383510908
PQPubID 23479
ParticipantIDs proquest_miscellaneous_2383510908
pubmed_primary_32209712
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2020-Oct
20201001
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2020-10-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 10
  year: 2020
  text: 2020-Oct
PublicationDecade 2020
PublicationPlace United States
PublicationPlace_xml – name: United States
PublicationTitle Respiratory care
PublicationTitleAlternate Respir Care
PublicationYear 2020
SSID ssj0026459
Score 2.3934798
Snippet Nebulizers are commonly used in emergency departments to deliver bronchodilators to children with asthma exacerbations. However, no clinical study comparing a...
SourceID proquest
pubmed
SourceType Aggregation Database
Index Database
StartPage 1451
SubjectTerms Administration, Inhalation
Adolescent
Aerosols
Albuterol
Asthma - drug therapy
Bronchodilator Agents
Child
Child, Preschool
Drug Delivery Systems
Humans
Nebulizers and Vaporizers
Surgical Mesh
Treatment Outcome
Title Clinical Efficacy of Vibrating Mesh and Jet Nebulizers With Different Interfaces in Pediatric Subjects With Asthma
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32209712
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2383510908
Volume 65
WOSCitedRecordID wos000574672900006&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
hasFullText
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV3fa9swEBZtM0pf2q7ruv4aNxh9irbYkiPnqYQ2oQwS8pBteQuWdCKB1klrd9D99dPZSvI0KPTF-MECI5_u7rs7fx9jX7UWSqUouJIdyaXFiOvIOm5bInFGOhPZtBKbUMNhOpl0RqHgVoSxypVPrBy1XRiqkX_3oUUkNEWYXi8fOalGUXc1SGhss4bwqQxZtZqsuwgxEaVUXWUpuGgnsiZtlFGqiJl7SbNV33zIFOn_08sqzPQP3vqCh2w_JJjQrS3iPdvC_IjtDkIL_YhdjWqy6pcmjDf_XhVNuILRhsb65QN7CpSh99Ajmgm_AhYOfhG8plFpGGAxgyy38ANLGKJ-vp__9bkk_J6XM7gNuislVCVHR4NfMM9hrQwC3mNRCSg83y3K2UN2zH72e-ObOx4UGrjxsLrksfPoTmToUZCgBl1bYYSplQptbDzQioxG17aRy5wyri2dRp-gdGzLYOxvk_gj28kXOX5iQKxUQrpY6ZaQaaZ1oowVLSQ-H7SoT9mX1bZP_QmgtkaW4-K5mG42_pSd1N9uuqypOqbeXRFJVnz2itXnbC8mMF1N6l2whvPnHy_ZO_OnnBdPnyvT8tfhaPAPw5XbaQ
linkProvider ProQuest
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical+Efficacy+of+Vibrating+Mesh+and+Jet+Nebulizers+With+Different+Interfaces+in+Pediatric+Subjects+With+Asthma&rft.jtitle=Respiratory+care&rft.au=Moody%2C+Gerald+B&rft.au=Luckett%2C+Peter+M&rft.au=Shockley%2C+Courtney+M&rft.au=Huang%2C+Rong&rft.date=2020-10-01&rft.issn=1943-3654&rft.eissn=1943-3654&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1451&rft_id=info:doi/10.4187%2Frespcare.07538&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1943-3654&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1943-3654&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1943-3654&client=summon