4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

A randomized trial of magnesium in the emergency department treatment of children with asthma

期刊

ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 36, 期 6, 页码 572-578

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1067/mem.2000.111060

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study objective: Magnesium sulfate has been shown to benefit asthmatic children and adults with poor responses to initial beta (2)-agonist therapy in the emergency department. We sought to determine whether the routine early administration of high-dose magnesium would benefit moderate to severely ill children with acute asthma. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 54 children 1 to 18 years of age who presented to the ED of a tertiary care children's hospital with a moderate to severe asthma exacerbation. After receiving a nebulized albuterol treatment (0.15 mg/kg) and methylprednisolone (1 mg/kg), patients were randomly assigned to receive either 75 mg/kg of magnesium sulfate (maximum 2.5 g) or placebo. Thereafter, ail patients were treated with frequent nebulized albuterol following a structured protocol. The main outcome was degree of improvement as assessed by Pulmonary Index scores over 120 minutes. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization rates and time required to meet discharge criteria. Results: The mean change in Pulmonary Index score from baseline to 120 minutes was 2.83 for the magnesium group compared with 2.66 for the placebo group (95% confidence interval -1.24 to 1.60). Eleven (46%) of 24 magnesium-treated patients were hospitalized compared with 16 (53%) of 30 in the placebo group (95% confidence interval -19% to 34%). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with respect to time required to meet discharge criteria. Conclusion: The routine administration of high-dose magnesium to moderate to severely ill children with asthma, as an adjunct to initial treatment with albuterol and corticosteroids, was not efficacious.

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

4.5
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