【摘要】 为了解Models4650Ⅰ型压缩机雾化器（简称M）进行支气管激发试验的可行性，将92例支气管哮喘息者按用M雾化吸入时间的不同，分为1、1．5、2分钟三级，并与标准雾化装置Dosimeter及雾化器（简称D）进行支气管激发试验同步对比研究。结果显示，三组受试者用两种雾化装置所获测值间无显著性差异（P＞0．2～0.5），且皆呈直线正相关。M与D皆雾化吸入1分钟时，M所需药物浓度大于D，相关系数（0．285）偏低，延长M的雾化吸入时间至1．5分钟，与D雾化吸入1分钟相比，两者差值最小（－0．075g／L），r＝0．665；若再延长M雾化吸入时间，与D的差值又会扩大。提示：M雾化效果稍差于D，适当延长时间可弥补上述差异，建议M雾化吸入时间以1．5分钟为宜。更多还原

【Abstract】 This study was directed to the feasibility of applying a simple atomizer-model 4650 type Ⅰ (abbrev. M)-to bronchial challenge test. 92 cases of asthma were divided into 3 groups randomly. All of them were subjected to the bronchial challenge test by M atomizer, and by standard Dosimeter atomizer (abbrev. D) as a comparison. In the test by M atomizer, the times for inspiring challenging medicine were 1, 1. 5 and 2 minutes for the 3 groups respectively, while the time for D atomizer was l minute for all. The results showed no significant differences (P>0. 2-0. 5) between the two atomizers in the 3 groups, their values were linear correlated. When the inspiring time was 1 minute for both M and D, the test needed a higher concentration of challenging medicine for M than for D, their coefficient of correlation (r=0. 285) was relatively low- When inspiring time postponed to 1. 5 minute for M, the difference in medicine concentration between M and D was smallest (- 0. 075g/L), r= 0. 665. However, a further postponed inspiring time to 2 minute for M reversely broadened their difference. These results indicated that the efficiency of M atomizer was a little lower than that of D, postponing the inspiring time for M could make up this weakness. A 1. 5 minute inspiring time for M atomizer was the suggestion. Some modifications on M atomizer were done by us for a better efficiency, and the cheap and popular M atomizer could be a good replacement in bronchial challenge test.更多还原