Chest Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Riker, J.
Right arrow Articles by Cacace, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Riker, J.
Right arrow Articles by Cacace, L.

Chest, Vol 78, 723-725, Copyright © 1980 by American College of Chest Physicians


ARTICLES

Double-blind comparison of metaproterenol and isoetharine-phenylephrine solutions in intermittent positive pressure breathing in bronchospastic conditions

JB Riker and LG Cacace

A 5 percent solution of metaproterenol sulfate (Alupent) and a fixed- combination solution of isoetharine and phenylephrine were compared in a single-dose double-blind study in a total of 27 patients with reversible bronchospastic disease. The patients were assigned to parallel groups for treatment and received the usual dose of 0.3 ml of metaproterenol and 0.5 ml of the isoetharine-phenylephrine solution via equipment for intermittent positive-pressure breathing. Tests of pulmonary function, blood pressure, and pulse rate were performed before the treatment and at intervals of 30 minutes to six hours after administration. The duration of effect (defined as an increase over baseline in the forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV1] of at least 15 percent) of metaproterenol averaged four hours, as compared with one hour for the reference solution. The overall response of FEV1 to metaproterenol was significantly (P = 0.01) superior to the response to the isoetharine-phenylephrine solution. Metaproterenol also surpassed the reference drug in terms of increases in the mean forced expiratory flow during the middle half of the forced vital capacity (FEF-25-75%) to a degree approaching statistical significance. Changes in blood pressure and pulse rate were clinically insignificant with both drugs, and the total number of adverse experiences was substantially the same with both solutions.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1980 by the American College of Chest Physicians.