Q&A

Intravenous albuterol effective for acute severe asthma

Author and Disclosure Information

Browne GJ, Trieu L, van Asperen P. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous salbutamol and nebulized ipratropium bromide in early management of severe acute asthma in children presenting to an emergency department. Crit Care Med 2002; 30:448–53.


 

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Bolus intravenous (IV) albuterol (salbutamol) improved outcomes in pediatric patients with severe asthma exacerbations in 1 earlier small study. Previous studies demonstrated that the addition of nebulized ipratropium bromide to initial emergency department therapy improves pulmonary function, but it is unclear whether combining the therapies results in earlier hospital discharge. This study compared these 2 approaches to determine their relative benefit in children with acute severe asthma.

POPULATION STUDIED: The researchers studied 55 children (aged 1–14 years) presenting with severe acute asthma to the emergency department of a ter-tiary children’s hospital in Sydney, Australia. Children were classified as having severe asthma if they had all 4 features of respiratory distress (wheezing, sternal retraction, accessory muscle use, and dyspnea) or had any of the absolute criteria (cyanosis, pulsus paradoxus, altered consciousness, or a silent chest auscultation). Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar. Children who were excluded included those with life-threatening asthma, age younger than 12 months, presence of heart disease, family history of Wolff-Parkinson-White or past supraventricular tachycardia, other respiratory disease, or pneumonia, and those who had received inhaled ipratropium bromide that day.

STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial. The enrolling physician, treating physician, and assessor of outcome were all blinded. All children received 1 dose of nebulized albuterol 2.5 or 5 mg, then were assessed for asthma severity. Children meeting inclusion criteria received oxygen as needed, 1 mg/kg IV bolus methylprednisolone, and nebulized albuterol every 20 minutes for the first hour. The frequency of nebulized albuterol was then decreased based on clinical improvement. Patients were then randomized to receive IV albuterol (15 μg/kg); IV saline and inhaled ipratropium bromide (250 mg) every 20 minutes; or IV albuterol (15 μg/kg) and inhaled ipratropium bromide (250 μg) every 20 minutes. Asthma severity was assessed at 1 and 2 hours into the study using the clinical assessment scale and pulmonary index score. All 55 children completed the study.

OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary outcomes for this study were mean recovery time (time from randomization to when patients no longer needed nebulized albuterol of a given frequency) and mean discharge time from the hospital. Secondary outcomes included clinical signs of moderate to severe asthma 2 hours after randomization and incidence of medication-related side effects.

RESULTS: Children treated with IV albuterol showed a significant benefit over those treated with inhaled ipratropium in recovery at 90, 120, and 180 minutes (P = .007, .01, and .004, respectively). Children in the IV albuterol group were ready for discharge 28.0 hours earlier than those in the ipratropium group (48.3 vs 76.3 hours; P = .005). The combination of IV albuterol and ipratropium showed a significant benefit over ipratropium alone in recovery time at 90 and 120 minutes (P = .02 and .008, respectively). However, no significant difference was evident between the combination and ipratropium alone in time to discharge (57.6 vs 76.3 hours, respectively; P = .2). The combination demonstrated no significant benefit over IV albuterol for any outcome. No significant adverse effects were documented in any of the patients, including tachycardia of more than 200 beats per minute for at least 5 minutes.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

In children with severe acute asthma, IV albuterol (15 μg/kg) in addition to nebulized albuterol and IV methylprednisolone, resulted in more rapid improvement of symptoms and decreased length of stay as compared with the use of nebulized ipratropium. However, because IV albuterol is not available in the United States and a Cochrane Database Review1 concluded there is no evidence to support use of IV 2-agonists in patients with severe asthma, larger trials need to be conducted to determine the place in therapy for IV albuterol.

Recommended Reading

How often is coughing the presenting complaint in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease?
MDedge Family Medicine
In children hospitalized for asthma exacerbations, does adding ipratropium bromide to albuterol and corticosteroids improve outcome?
MDedge Family Medicine
Is budesonide or nedocromil superior in the long-term management of mild to moderate asthma in children?
MDedge Family Medicine
Fluticasone Propionate Compared with Zafirlukast in Controlling Persistent Asthma A Randomized Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial
MDedge Family Medicine
In patients with asthma that is not well controlled with inhaled steroids, does salmeterol (Serevent) or montelukast (Singulair) offer better symptom relief?
MDedge Family Medicine
Is a 2-day course of oral dexamethasone more effective than 5 days of oral prednisone in improving symptoms and preventing relapse in children with acute asthma?
MDedge Family Medicine
In children with asthma, do inhaled steroids reduce linear growth (height)?
MDedge Family Medicine
Do African American asthmatics perceive and describe their asthma symptoms differently than white asthmatics?
MDedge Family Medicine
Is there a clinical difference in outcomes when b-agonist therapy is delivered through metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with a spacing device compared with standard nebulizer treatments in acutely wheezing children?
MDedge Family Medicine
Does exposure of young children to older siblings or to children at day-care facilities protect against the development of asthma later in childhood?
MDedge Family Medicine