The suggestion made by One of the stated objectives of the study by It might therefore have been expected that a statement to the effect that intravenous salbutamol was a useful addition to the treatment of acute asthma would have been supported by evidence indicating its superiority, in at least some respects, to the alternative treatment, aerosol salbutamol, given in the same dose. In fact, the data presented in the article suggest that intravenous salbutamol did not produce a greater degree of bronchodilatation than aerosol salbutamol, that its duration of action was considerably shorter and that it caused quite severe cardiovascular changes, which were not observed with the same dose of aerosol salbutamol. It could therefore be argued that the authors should have added a rider to the last conclusion in their summary to the effect that aerosol salbutamol is preferable to intravenous salbutamol on the grounds that it produces a similar degree of bronchodilatation for a longer period without the disturbing cardiovascular effects associated with intravenous administration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
I W Grant (1976) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: