↓ Skip to main content

Intranasal Medication Administration Using a Squeeze Bottle Atomizer Results in Overdosing if Deployed in Supine Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Anesthesia and analgesia, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Intranasal Medication Administration Using a Squeeze Bottle Atomizer Results in Overdosing if Deployed in Supine Patients
Published in
Anesthesia and analgesia, August 2017
DOI 10.1213/ane.0000000000001686
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Vasoconstrictors and local anesthetics are commonly administered using a squeeze bottle atomizer to the nasal mucosa to reduce edema, limit bleeding, and provide analgesia. Despite widespread use, there are few clinical guidelines that address technical details related to safe administration. The purpose of this study was to quantify, via simulation, the amount of liquid delivered to the nasal mucosa when patients are in the supine and upright positions and administration parameters that would reliably provide the desired amount of medication per spray. A convenience sample of 10 anesthesia residents was studied. Providers were instructed to use a 25-mL dip and tube nasal squeeze bottle to administer the test solution (sterile water) to a mannequin in the upright (90° elevation) and supine (0° elevation) position. After mannequin testing, additional testing was completed with the spray bottles at 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, and 90° to determine the relationship between the angles of administration and the amount of liquid dispensed. The mean volume delivered per spray was substantially greater when administered in the supine position (0.56 ± 0.22 mL) compared with the upright position (0.041 ± 0.02 mL, difference = 0.52 mL, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.67 mL, P < .001). Converting the administered volume to the dose of phenylephrine that would be administered using our standard 0.25% solution, an estimated additional 1300 mcg is delivered per spray in the supine position compared with the upright position (95% CI, 925-1675 mcg, P < .001). Administration with a delivery angle of ≤30° resulted in significantly more volume than when the bottle was oriented at a 90° angle. The volume dispensed at 45° was not different from the volume delivered at 90° (0.032 ± 0.006 mL vs 0.030 ± 0.005 mL, P = .34). We found a 14-fold increase in the volume (ie, dose) delivered per spray when a nasal squeeze bottle was used with a mannequin in the supine position compared with the upright position. Given the reported toxicity from the use of intranasal medication and the inadvertent overdosing that occurs when squeeze bottle atomizers are used in clinical practice, our data suggest that all intranasal drugs should be administered with a precise, metered-dose device. If a metered-dose device is unavailable, the medication should be delivered at an angle of ≥45°; however, we recommend administering the drug with the patient in the sitting position and the bottle at 90° because only a small change in angle below 45° will result in a substantial increase in medication delivered.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 27%
Student > Bachelor 3 20%
Other 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 27%
Environmental Science 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 August 2018.
All research outputs
#22,071,229
of 34,410,798 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesia and analgesia
#7,993
of 10,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,127
of 357,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesia and analgesia
#80
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,798 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 357,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.