The interrupter technique (Rint) is a noninvasive method for assessing respiratory resistance. The aims of this study were to assess whether upper airway support affects the measurement of Rint, if inspiratory or expiratory Rint were most reproducible, and which method of assessing Rint correlated best with spirometry results and was the most sensitive for identifying bronchodilator response. Twenty-four asthmatic children with a mean age of 10.3 years (range, 7-16 years) were included in the study. Rint measurements were obtained in inspiration and expiration with cheeks supported and unsupported. Spirometry was then performed. Rint and spirometry measurements were repeated after the inhalation of 600 mcg of salbutamol. The mean Rint supported inspiratory (0.708 KPa/l/sec) and expiratory (0.729 KPa/l/sec) values were significantly higher than the unsupported values (inspiratory, 0.622 KPa/l/sec; expiratory, 0.584 KPa/l/sec), P < 0.05 and P < 0.001, respectively. The reproducibility of Rint was not different whether cheeks were supported or not, or whether the measurements were carried out during inspiration or expiration. Cheek support improved the correlation with all the lung function results, both in inspiratory and expiratory measurements. The best correlations, however, were found for the inspiratory supported Rint results. The most sensitive method to ascertain bronchodilator response (BD) was the inspiratory supported Rint measurement, as 83.3% of children were identified as having a positive response to bronchodilator therapy as defined by a reduction of twice the coefficient of variation of the measurement. In conclusion, cheek support increases Rint but does not impact on reproducibility, though it improves the correlation with spirometric indices. Rint with cheek support on inspiration correlates best with spirometric indices and appears to be the most sensitive measure of response to bronchodilators.
BackgroundAdvances in healthcare have improved the survival of children with neurological disabilities (ND). Studies in the US have shown that children with ND use a substantial proportion of resources in children’s hospitals, however, little research has been conducted in the UK. We aimed to test the hypothesis that children with neurological disabilities use more inpatient resources than children without neurological disabilities, and to quantify any significant differences in resource use.Methods
A retrospective observational study was conducted, looking at the number of hospital admissions, total inpatient days and the reason for admissions for paediatric inpatients from January 1st to March 31st 2015. Inpatients were assigned into one of three groups: children without ND, children with one ND, and children with more than one ND.ResultsThe sample population included 942 inpatients (mean age 6y 6mo). Children with at least one ND accounted for 15.3% of the inpatients, 17.7% of total hospital inpatient admission episodes, and 27.8% of the total inpatients days. Neurological disability had a statistically significant effect on total hospital admissions (p < 0.001). Neurological disability also had a statistically significant effect on total inpatient days (p < 0.001). Neurological disability increased the length of inpatient stay across medicine, specialties, and surgery.ConclusionsChildren with ND had more frequent hospital admission episode and longer inpatient stays. We identified a smaller group within this population, with arguably more complex neurological disabilities, children with more than one ND. This group had the highest number of admissions and longest inpatient stays. More frequent hospital admissions and longer inpatient stays may place children with ND at greater risk of the adverse effects of hospitalisations. We recommend further investigations looking at each the effects of the different categories of ND on inpatient resource use, and repeat of this study at a national level and over a longer period of time.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.