MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386069986 · doi:10.4187/respcare.11139

Bronchodilator Efficacy of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in COPD: Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer Versus Jet Nebulizer

2023· article· en· W4386069986 on OpenAlexaff
Itthiphat Arunsurat, Nuttapol Rittayamai, Benjamas Chuaychoo, Suwat Tangchityongsiva, Simaporn Promsarn, Somruthai Yuenyong, Chung‐Wai Chow, Laurent Brochard

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersFaculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol UniversityMahidol University
KeywordsNebulizerMedicineBronchodilatorAnesthesiaSalbutamolCOPDCrossover studySpirometryNasal cannulaCannulaAsthmaInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Jet nebulizers are commonly used for bronchodilator therapy in COPD. High-flow nasal cannula with vibrating mesh nebulizer (HFNC-VMN) is a recently developed system; however, few studies have compared the efficacy of bronchodilator administration via HFNC-VMN to jet nebulizer in stable COPD. This study aimed to compare the effect of salbutamol administered via HFNC-VMN versus jet nebulizer on airway and lung function in subjects with stable COPD. METHODS: This randomized non-inferiority crossover physiologic study enrolled subjects with stable COPD. Salbutamol was nebulized via HFNC-VMN or jet nebulizer in random order with a 4-h washout period between crossover sequences. Spirometry, lung volume, and impulse oscillometry were performed at baseline and after each intervention. The primary outcome was change in FEV 1 from baseline. Secondary outcomes included changes in other respiratory-related parameters and nebulization time compared between the 2 devices. RESULTS: Seventeen subjects were enrolled. HFNC-VMN and jet nebulizer both significantly improved FEV 1 from baseline ( P = .005 and P = .002, respectively). The difference between respiratory resistance at 5 Hz and 20 Hz significantly decreased after HFNC-VMN compared to baseline ( P = .02), while no significant change was observed after jet nebulizer ( P = .056). Area of reactance and resonant frequency of reactance were both significantly decreased ( P = .035 and P = .03, respectively), and respiratory reactance at 5 Hz significantly increased ( P = .02) in the HFNC-VMN group compared to baseline indicating improved lung mechanics, with no significant changes with the jet nebulizer. HFNC-VMN had a shorter nebulization time (6 [5–9] min vs 20 [16–22] min, respectively, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Bronchodilator therapy via HFNC-VMN was not inferior to jet nebulizer for subjects with stable COPD and can significantly improve airway oscillometry mechanics and decrease nebulization time compared to jet nebulizer.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory CareSame topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207