4.7 Article

The β-agonist lung injury trial (BALTI) -: A randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200508-1302OC

关键词

adrenergic beta-agonists; adult respiratory distress syndrome; albuterol; extravascular lung water; pulmonary edema

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale: Experimental data suggest that manipulation of alveolar fluid clearance with beta-agonists can accelerate the resolution of alveolar edema and improve survival. Objective: To determine if a sustained infusion of intravenous salbutamol (albuterol) would accelerate the resolution of alveolar edema in adult patients with acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: This was a single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Patients with ALI/ARDS were randomized to treatment with intravenous salbutamol (15 mu g kg(-1) h(-1)) or placebo for 7 d. The primary endpoint was extravascular lung water measured by thermodilution (PiCCO) at Day 7. Measurements and Main Results: Sixty-six patients were screened; of these, 40 met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled during 2001-2003. Patients in the salbutamol group had significantly lower lung water at Day 7 than the placebo group (9.2 +/- 6 vs. 13.2 +/- 3 ml kg(-1); 95% confidence interval difference, 0.2-8.3 ml kg(-1); p = 0.038). Plateau airway pressure was lower at Day 7 in the salbutamol group (23.9 +/- 3.8 cm H2O) versus placebo (29.5 +/- 7.2 cm H2O; P = 0.049). There was a trend toward lower Murray lung injury score at Day 7 in the salbutamol group (1.7 +/- 0.9) versus placebo (2.0 +/- 0.6; p = 0.2). Patients in the salbutamol group had a higher incidence of supraventricular arrhythmias (26 vs. 10%; p = 0.2). Conclusion: Although further research is required to confirm the efficacy and safety of intravenous salbutamol in ALI/ARDS, this trial provides the first proof of principle that, in humans with ALI/ARDS, sustained treatment with intravenous beta-agonists reduces extravascular lung water.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据