0
Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

±â°üÁö õ½ÄȯÀÚ¿¡¼­ ±â°üÁö È®ÀåÁ¦ »ç¿ë¹ý¿¡ µû¸¥ Æó±â´É°ú ¾ÈÀü¼º

Pulmonary Function and Safety according to the Methods of Bronchodilator Use among Patients with Bronchial Asthma

°£È£°úÇгíÁý - Àü³²´ëÇб³ 2011³â 16±Ç 1È£ p.89 ~ 96
KMID : 1190720110160010089
ÃÖÀÚÀ± ( Choi Ja-Yun ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ °£È£´ëÇÐ

ÀÓ¼º·Ä ( Lim S.-Y. ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ °£È£´ëÇÐ
ÀÓ³ª·¡ ( Lim N.-R. ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ °£È£´ëÇÐ
ÀÓº¸¹Ì ( Lim B.-M. ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ °£È£´ëÇÐ
ÀÓ¼Ö ( Lim S. ) - Àü³²´ëÇб³ °£È£´ëÇÐ

Abstract

Purposes: This study was aimed to examine the effect of usage and preparation for bronchodilators on lung function and safety among patients with bronchial asthma.

Method: A total of seven adult asthma patients were recruited from a University hospital located in K City in Korea. The participants took inhaled medication by a nebulizer with two different methods: (1) mixing pratropium bromide with salbutamol, (2) separate delivery of ipratropium bromide and salbutamol. The participants performed lung function testing before and after a nebulized treatment. Prepared brochodilators were kept either in room air or under refrigeration through the 1st to 30th days.

Results: Pre and post forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) of the predicted value were 44.86% and 46.57%, and variance was 4.73% in the mixed method. Pre and post predicted FEV1 were 43.57% and 46.37%, variance was 7.67% in the separate method. There was no statistically significant difference between two methods of nebulized bronchodilator (p=.482). There was no evidence of bacterial growth on both of room air and refrigeration through the time.

Conclusion: This study suggests further investigation, given the limitations in this study in which participants were very severe asthmatic patients and sample size was small.
KeyWords

Bronchial asthma, Pulmonary function, Bronchodilator, Safety
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸