Prova broncodilatadora na espirometria: efeito do uso de espaçador de grande volume com tratamento antiestático na resposta ao broncodilatador / Spirometry with bronchodilator test: effect that the use of large-volume spacers with antistatic treatment has on test response

OBJETIVO: Avaliar se o uso de salbutamol inalatório através de inalador dosimetrado acoplado a espaçadores de grande volume com tratamento antiestático na espirometria com prova broncodilatadora modifica os resultados do teste quando comparado à técnica usual (sem espaçador). MÉTODOS: Estudo prospectivo envolvendo 24 pacientes, com idades entre 18 e 45 anos e suspeita clínica de asma, atendidos no Ambulatório de Pneumologia do Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, em Belo Horizonte (MG). Os pacientes foram submetidos a duas espirometrias com prova broncodilatadora realizadas com e sem o uso de espaçador de grande volume. RESULTADOS: Não houve diferença significativa na variação do VEF1 antes e após o uso de broncodilatador entre as duas técnicas (ΔVEF1 média = 0,01 L; IC95 por cento: -0,05 a 0,06; p = 0,824). Não houve diferença estatisticamente significativa entre as duas técnicas em relação ao resultado qualitativo da prova broncodilatadora (p = 1,00). Houve concordância dos resultados da prova broncodilatadora entre as técnicas (coeficiente kappa = 0,909; p < 0,005). CONCLUSÕES: De acordo com os resultados deste estudo, a utilização de espaçadores de grande volume não modificou de forma significativa os resultados da prova broncodilatadora.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the use of inhaled albuterol via a metered-dose inhaler with a large-volume spacer with antistatic treatment modifies the bronchodilator test results when compared with the usual technique (no spacer). METHODS: A prospective study involving 24 patients, 18-45 years of age, clinically suspected of having asthma, and under treatment at the Outpatient Pulmonary Clinic of the Federal University of Minas Gerais Hospital das Clínicas, located in the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. All of the patients underwent two bronchodilator tests: one with and one without the use of a large-volume spacer. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the variation of FEV1 prior to and after bronchodilator use between the two techniques (mean ΔFEV1 = 0.01 L; 95 percent CI: -0.05 to 0.06; p = 0.824). No statistically significant difference was found between the two techniques regarding the qualitative results on the bronchodilator test (p = 1.00). There was concordance between the techniques in terms of the bronchodilator test results (kappa coefficient = 0.909; p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this study, the use of large-volume spacers does not significantly modify bronchodilator test results.

Spirometry with bronchodilator test: effect that the use of large-volume spacers with antistatic treatment has on test response.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the use of inhaled albuterol via a metered-dose inhaler with a large-volume spacer with antistatic treatment modifies the bronchodilator test results when compared with the usual technique (no spacer). METHODS: A prospective study involving 24 patients, 18-45 years of age, clinically suspected of having asthma, and under treatment at the Outpatient Pulmonary Clinic of the Federal University of Minas Gerais Hospital das Clínicas, located in the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. All of the patients underwent two bronchodilator tests: one with and one without the use of a large-volume spacer. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the variation of FEV1 prior to and after bronchodilator use between the two techniques (mean ΔFEV1 = 0.01 L; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.06; p = 0.824). No statistically significant difference was found between the two techniques regarding the qualitative results on the bronchodilator test (p = 1.00). There was concordance between the techniques in terms of the bronchodilator test results (kappa coefficient = 0.909; p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this study, the use of large-volume spacers does not significantly modify bronchodilator test results.

Evaluation of the treatment provided to patients with asthma by the Brazilian Unified Health Care System.

OBJECTIVE: To determine, based on international guidelines for asthma management, the appropriateness of the treatment that the Unified Health Care System provides to patients with asthma. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving patients suspected of having asthma and referred to the Pulmonology Clinic of the Federal University of Minas Gerais Hospital das Clínicas, Brazil, between November of 2006 and October of 2007. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were included, and 70 were diagnosed with asthma. The previous treatment was consistent with the guidelines in 18.6% of the patients; 50.0% of the patients had previously been submitted to spirometry, and 34.3% had previously been submitted to PEF. The most frequently prescribed medication was short-acting beta2 agonists (90.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the majority of non-specialized physicians working within the public health care system do not manage the treatment of patients with asthma in accordance with the guidelines. This situation calls for continuing medical education programs that prioritize primary care.

Avaliação da assistência ao paciente asmático no Sistema Único de Saúde / Evaluation of the treatment provided to patients with asthma by the Brazilian Unified Health Care System

Objetivo: Verificar a adequação da assistência médica prestada a pacientes asmáticos do Sistema Único de Saúdede acordo com diretrizes internacionais para o manejo da asma. Métodos: Estudo transversal, incluindo pacientescom suspeita de asma e encaminhados para o Serviço de Pneumologia do Hospital das Clínicas da UniversidadeFederal de Minas Gerais entre novembro de 2006 e outubro de 2007. Resultados: Foram incluídos 102 pacientes, e 70 confirmados como asmáticos. A assistência médica anterior foi considerada adequada em 18,6% dos pacientes; 50,0% dos asmáticos já haviam realizado espirometria previamente e 34,3%, manobra de PFE. A medicação mais utilizada foi o β2-agonista de curta duração (90,3%). Conclusões: Os resultados indicam que o manejo de pacientes asmáticos pela maioria dos médicos não-especialistas do sistema público de saúde está em desacordo com as diretrizes, sendo necessários programas de educação médica continuada, priorizando o nível de atenção primária.

Objective: To determine, based on international guidelines for asthma management, the appropriateness of thetreatment that the Unified Health Care System provides to patients with asthma. Methods: This was a crosssectional study involving patients suspected of having asthma and referred to the Pulmonology Clinic of theFederal University of Minas Gerais Hospital das Clínicas, Brazil, between November of 2006 and October of 2007.Results: A total of 102 patients were included, and 70 were diagnosed with asthma. The previous treatment wasconsistent with the guidelines in 18.6% of the patients; 50.0% of the patients had previously been submitted to spirometry, and 34.3% had previously been submitted to PEF. The most frequently prescribed medication wasshort-acting β2 agonists (90.3%). Conclusions: The results show that the majority of non-specialized physiciansworking within the public health care system do not manage the treatment of patients with asthma in accordancewith the guidelines. This situation calls for continuing medical education programs that prioritize primary care.