Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children, but not all the devices necessary to mitigate the effects of asthma, are as effective as they should, according to a study published in the journal "Respiratory Care".
Israel Amirav, from the Department of Pediatrics at Safed Hospital (Israel), states that "The interest in these devices has been increasing and their improvement has meant that their effectiveness is 30% higher than that of aerosols."
In the study, they compared the efficacy of seven frequently used cameras, and affirm that there is too much dead space, that is, the mask is too bulky and when filling with air some of the medication is lost, in addition, its rigidity and lack of adjustment to the face of the child, causes that the necessary dose of medicine is not received. The head of the Neurophysiology Service of the Niño Jesús Hospital in Madrid, José Ramón Villa, says that, “One camera is not the same as another. As with aerosols, up to 50% of the product is lost, the same happens with inhalers, although in smaller quantities, depending on the variables measured in this work ”.
It also influences the material of the devices, the quality of the valves and the way in which it is pressed against the child's face, as well as the cleaning of the devices. The plastic chambers produce electrostatic charge, so that some particles of the medicine remain attached to the walls of the device, and in hygiene, it is necessary to take into account not to dry them, since this electrostatic charge is raised.
For this pulmonologist, the best cameras in our market are Aerochamber, Neurochamber and Babychamber, but only in the Basque Country and Navarra are financed by social security, something incomprehensible being aware of the need for these devices and the considerable increase that Spain is suffering from childhood asthma
