[Nebulization of emergency medications in the south German rescue service]. / Vernebelung von Notfallmedikamenten im süddeutschen Rettungsdienst.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In German emergency rescue services, inhalation treatment is routinely carried out by qualified health personnel. Standard operating procedures (SOP) for nebulization are neither uniform throughout Germany nor available in all federal states. Standardized recommendations with respect to which nebulizer type should be used are missing. The aerosol output as well as the drug deposition rates of jet and mesh nebulizers, however, differ considerably. Mesh devices can achieve a threefold higher lung deposition. Their use in emergency departments has also been shown to be associated with a better patient outcome when compared to jet nebulizers. OBJECTIVE: This survey was designed to evaluate the type of nebulizer used in the south German rescue services. Special attention was paid to the influence of existing SOP on the decision to perform nebulization during emergency treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 4800 emergency paramedics working in Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria and Rhineland-Palatinate received a questionnaire with a total of 17 questions on the implementation of drug nebulization in the daily practice. RESULTS: Despite the existence of more efficient nebulizer types, the jet nebulizer was by far the most frequently used nebulizer in the south German rescue services. The deposition rates of both the jet and mesh nebulizers were considerably overestimated by most respondents; however, 77.5% of all respondents could not give any information about the deposition rates of the mesh nebulizer. Only two thirds of all respondents carried out nebulization treatment on the basis of SOP. The implementation of SOP, however, was pivotal to the application of nebulization during emergencies. If SOP were in place,76.9% of the responders used aerosol treatment compared to 23.1% when there were none. The perceived safety when using nebulization during emergencies was also significantly higher (p = 0.013) when SOP were implemented. CONCLUSION: The exclusive use of mesh nebulizers could standardize the treatment of emergency patients in the south German rescue services. The use of mesh devices might possibly improve patient outcomes, even if clinical studies are still lacking. Nebulizer treatment differs between the federal states. A comprehensive implementation of SOP for nebulization treatment might support this process and could increase the application frequency and the perceived safety of nebulization during emergencies. A better training of paramedic personnel could improve the knowledge of aerosols as a treatment option for emergency patients and help to classify the advantages and disadvantages of the different aerosol generators available.