Comparison of Bronchodilator Treatment Practices in Group E COPD Patients
NCT ID: NCT06178068
Last Updated: 2023-12-20
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
39 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2024-01-01
2025-01-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Dry air nebulizer devices use dry air from the central system in hospitals. This system, which converts bronchodilator drugs into nebulizers by creating high currents, works like classical nebulizers without an electrical system and can have a higher flow rate than jet nebulizer devices. This procedure, which can be applied to COPD patients without giving high-flow oxygen, prevents carbon dioxide retention. There is no study in the literature comparing the bronchodilator effectiveness of dry air, classical nebulizer, and jet nebulizer, and the investigators aimed to compare the efficacy of these three treatment modalities in our study.
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Group 1; jet nebulizer group
The Respirox® RNEB-18 device was used for the bronchodilator treatment given before the randomization of the patients and for the maintenance bronchodilator treatment given in Group 1 patients. After calibrating the device, it was determined that it performed nebulization with a flow of 6 lt/min.
Comparison of bronchodilator effectiveness of nebulizer therapy devices
The Respirox® RNEB-18 device was used for the bronchodilator treatment given before the randomization of the patients and for the maintenance bronchodilator treatment given in Group 1 patients. After calibrating the device, it was determined that it performed nebulization with a flow of 6 lt/min. In Group 2 patients, a HAVELSAN® EHSİM brand nebulizer produced in our country, compatible with the central system of our hospital, was used as a dry air nebulizer. For classical nebulizer treatment in Group 3 patients, a nebulizer device compatible with our hospital's central oxygen system was used. In Group 2 and 3 patients, the flow system could be adjusted manually. To be consistent with Group 1 patients, bronchodilator treatment was administered at a 6 lt/min flow rate.
Group 2; dry air nebulizer group
In Group 2 patients, a HAVELSAN® EHSİM brand nebulizer produced in our country, compatible with the central system of our hospital, was used as a dry air nebulizer.
Comparison of bronchodilator effectiveness of nebulizer therapy devices
The Respirox® RNEB-18 device was used for the bronchodilator treatment given before the randomization of the patients and for the maintenance bronchodilator treatment given in Group 1 patients. After calibrating the device, it was determined that it performed nebulization with a flow of 6 lt/min. In Group 2 patients, a HAVELSAN® EHSİM brand nebulizer produced in our country, compatible with the central system of our hospital, was used as a dry air nebulizer. For classical nebulizer treatment in Group 3 patients, a nebulizer device compatible with our hospital's central oxygen system was used. In Group 2 and 3 patients, the flow system could be adjusted manually. To be consistent with Group 1 patients, bronchodilator treatment was administered at a 6 lt/min flow rate.
Group 3; Classic nebülizer group
For classical nebulizer treatment in Group 3 patients, a nebulizer device compatible with our hospital's central oxygen system was used.
Comparison of bronchodilator effectiveness of nebulizer therapy devices
The Respirox® RNEB-18 device was used for the bronchodilator treatment given before the randomization of the patients and for the maintenance bronchodilator treatment given in Group 1 patients. After calibrating the device, it was determined that it performed nebulization with a flow of 6 lt/min. In Group 2 patients, a HAVELSAN® EHSİM brand nebulizer produced in our country, compatible with the central system of our hospital, was used as a dry air nebulizer. For classical nebulizer treatment in Group 3 patients, a nebulizer device compatible with our hospital's central oxygen system was used. In Group 2 and 3 patients, the flow system could be adjusted manually. To be consistent with Group 1 patients, bronchodilator treatment was administered at a 6 lt/min flow rate.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Comparison of bronchodilator effectiveness of nebulizer therapy devices
The Respirox® RNEB-18 device was used for the bronchodilator treatment given before the randomization of the patients and for the maintenance bronchodilator treatment given in Group 1 patients. After calibrating the device, it was determined that it performed nebulization with a flow of 6 lt/min. In Group 2 patients, a HAVELSAN® EHSİM brand nebulizer produced in our country, compatible with the central system of our hospital, was used as a dry air nebulizer. For classical nebulizer treatment in Group 3 patients, a nebulizer device compatible with our hospital's central oxygen system was used. In Group 2 and 3 patients, the flow system could be adjusted manually. To be consistent with Group 1 patients, bronchodilator treatment was administered at a 6 lt/min flow rate.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
* Pulmonary embolism
* Cerebral aneurysm
* Active hemoptysis
* Pneumothorax
* Nausea, vomiting
* Recent thorax, abdominal, and eye surgery were identified in the patients before the pulmonary function test and were not included in the study.
* Mental retardation
* Pneumonia with acute exacerbation of COPD
* Patients with pulmonary edema due to congestive heart failure
* Patients with interstitial lung disease along with COPD
40 Years
75 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Ataturk University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Bugra Kerget
Associate professor
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
B.30.2.ATA.0.01.00/122
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id