Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Feb 1;38(2):e529-e533.
doi: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000002372.

Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Bulb Aspirator With a Nasal-Oral Aspirator in the Treatment of Bronchiolitis

Whitney Wroe Schwarz  1 , Matthew Wilkinson, Addison Allen
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Bulb Aspirator With a Nasal-Oral Aspirator in the Treatment of Bronchiolitis

Whitney Wroe Schwarz et al. Pediatr Emerg Care. .

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare the traditional bulb aspirator with a nasal-oral aspirator in the treatment of bronchiolitis.

Methods: This was a single-center, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Patients with bronchiolitis discharged from the emergency department were randomized to receive a bulb or nasal-oral aspirator for home use.Data regarding return visits, hydration, respiratory relief, parental satisfaction, device preference, and adverse events were gathered using a predistribution questionnaire, diary, poststudy questionnaire, and chart review.

Results: There was not a statistically significant difference in the rate of unscheduled return visits (bulb vs nasal-oral, 28.2% vs 20.7%; P = 0.26). No difference was seen in hydration or respiratory relief in either the diary or poststudy questionnaire. The nasal-oral aspirator had higher satisfaction rates (bulb vs nasal-oral, 68.8% vs 93.9%; P < 0.01). When asked which device was preferred with regard to all devices ever tried, 57.2% of respondents reported the nasal-oral aspirator. More adverse events were seen with the bulb compared with the nasal-oral aspirator (bulb vs nasal-oral, 50.0% vs 17.5%; P < 0.01).

Conclusions: No difference was appreciated between the bulb and nasal-oral aspirators in unscheduled return rates. The nasal-oral aspirator demonstrated higher parental satisfaction and preference rates, and fewer adverse effects compared with the bulb aspirator. Medical providers should have a cost-benefit discussion with caregivers when recommending home aspirators for the treatment of bronchiolitis.Registry ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03288857. Comparison of the Bulb Aspirator With a Nasal-Oral Aspirator in the Treatment of Bronchiolitis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Friedman JN, Rieder MJ, Walton JM. Bronchiolitis: recommendations for diagnosis, monitoring and management of children one to 24 months of age. Paediatr Child Health . 2014;19:485–498.
    1. Ralston SL, Lieberthal AS, Meissner HC, et al. Clinical practice guideline: the diagnosis, management, and prevention of bronchiolitis. Pediatrics . 2014;134:e1474–e1502.
    1. Hasegawa K, Tsugawa Y, Brown DF, et al. Temporal trends in emergency department visits for bronchiolitis in the United States, 2006 to 2010. Pediatr Infect Dis J . 2014;33:11–18.
    1. Moschino L, Mario F, Carraro S, et al. Is nasal suctioning warranted before measuring O2 saturation in infants with bronchiolitis? Arch Dis Child . 2016;101:114–115.
    1. Mussman GM, Parker MW, Statile A, et al. Suctioning and length of stay in infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis. JAMA Pediatr . 2013;167:414–421.

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources