How should we estimate driving pressure to measure interrupter resistance in children?

Interrupter resistance (R(int)) is a widely used measure of airway caliber, but concerns remain about repeatability and sensitivity. Some R(int) variability may derive from the linear back-extrapolation algorithm (LBE 30/70) usually used to estimate driving pressure. To investigate whether other methods of estimating driving pressure could improve repeatability and sensitivity, we studied 39 children with asthma. Two measurements of R(int)-each the median of 10 interruptions-were made 5 min apart, and 14 children had a third measurement after bronchodilator (R(int)BD). Mouth pressure transients were analyzed using several algorithms, to compare the magnitude, repeatability, and sensitivity to bronchodilator change of R(int) values yielded. Algorithms taking driving pressure from later in the transient, predictably, yielded higher values of R(int) than those which back-extrapolated to time of valve closure. Algorithms which did not rely on back-extrapolation, including mean oscillation pressure (MOP) and mean plateau pressure (MP 30/70) had better repeatability. Sensitivity to detect change, calculated as ratio of bronchodilator response to repeatability coefficient (DeltaR(int)/CR), was also better for non-extrapolating algorithms: MP 30/70 1.67, LBE 30/70 1.28 (P = 0.0004). Measuring R(int) using techniques other than conventional back-extrapolation may give more consistent and clinically useful results, and these approaches merit further exploration.

How do we treat wheezing infants? Evidence or anecdote.

Consultant paediatricians were questioned about their management of wheezing disorders in infants. Salbutamol was the preferred bronchodilator for recurrent wheeze, whereas ipratropium was preferred in viral bronchiolitis. Doses of both medications varied widely. Both inhaled and oral corticosteroids were considered by most respondents. Practice does not clearly follow guidelines or evidence and presumably continues to be based on anecdote.

Comparison of resistance measured by the interrupter technique and by passive mechanics in sedated infants.

Airways resistance measured by the interrupter technique (Rint) requires little patient cooperation and has been successfully used in young children, but little studied in infants. The authors aimed to evaluate the measurement of Rint in infants, using a commercially available device (the MicroRint), by comparing it with an established technique to measure respiratory resistance: the single breath occlusion technique (SBT); and a measure of airflow obstruction during forced expiration. Infants <18 months old with a history of wheeze, sedated with triclofos for pulmonary function testing, had measurements taken and compared to Rint (using the MicroRint), respiratory system resistance (Rrs) by SBT, and to maximal flow at functional residual capacity (V'maxFRC). Paired data from 25 of 37 infants studied was obtained. There was a significant difference between Rint (mean 2.94+/-0.68) and Rrs (4.02+/-0.87), but the two measures were strongly correlated (r=0.7). Rint was negatively correlated with V'maxFRC (r=-0.63). Smaller infants failed to trigger the MicroRint. Interrupter resistance values in infants are significantly lower than values of respiratory system resistance obtained by passive mechanics. However, there is a strong correlation between the two measurements, as well as between resistance measured using the interrupter technique and maximal flow at functional residual capacity, which indicates that resistance measured using the interrupter technique may be a useful marker of airway obstruction in infants. There remain a number of theoretical and technical problems which require further exploration.

Persistent wheezing in infants with an atopic tendency responds to inhaled fluticasone.

BACKGROUND: The role of inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of wheeze in infancy remains unclear. AIM: To investigate the effect of inhaled fluticasone on symptoms in a group of wheezy infants who had a high risk of progressing to childhood asthma. METHODS: A total of 52 infants, under 1 year of age, with a history of wheeze or cough and a history (personal or first degree relative) of atopy were prescribed either 150 microg fluticasone twice daily (group F) or placebo (group P), via metered dose inhaler, for 12 weeks following a two week run in period. Symptoms were scored in a parent held diary and the mean daily symptom score (MDS) and symptom free days (SFD) calculated for each two week period. RESULTS: Thirty seven infants completed the study. Both MDS and SFD improved significantly between the run in and final two week period in group F, but not group P, with a mean difference in change (95% CI) between groups of 1.12 (0.05 to 2.18) for MDS and median difference of 3.0 (0.002 to 8.0) for SFD. CONCLUSION: Improvement of clinical symptoms in response to fluticasone can be shown in this high risk group of infants. In the absence of effective alternatives inhaled corticosteroids should be considered in this patient group.

Inhaled salbutamol for wheezy infants: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Salbutamol is frequently used as a bronchodilator for infants who wheeze. Many single dose studies have questioned its effectiveness. AIMS: To investigate the response of wheezy infants to salbutamol over an extended time period in order to elucidate either symptomatic relief or a protective effect. METHODS: Eighty infants under 1 year, with persistent or recurrent wheeze and a personal or family history of atopy, were recruited to a randomised, double blind, cross over, placebo controlled trial. Salbutamol (200 microg three times daily) or placebo were administered regularly over two consecutive treatment periods of four weeks via a spacer and mask. Symptoms of wheeze and cough were recorded in a diary. At the end of the study pulmonary function tests were performed before and after salbutamol (400 microg). RESULTS: Forty eight infants completed the diary study; 40 infants underwent pulmonary function testing. No difference in mean daily symptom score was observed between the salbutamol and placebo periods. There was no difference in the number of symptom free days. Compliance and forced expiratory flows remained unchanged and resistance increased following salbutamol. There was no relation between the response measured by symptom score or pulmonary function in individual patients. CONCLUSION: In wheezy infants with an atopic background, there was no significant beneficial effect of salbutamol on either clinical symptoms or pulmonary function. Clinical effects could not be predicted from pulmonary function tests. Salbutamol cannot be recommended as the bronchodilator of choice in this age group.