Cargando…

In vitro comparison between inspiration synchronized and continuous vibrating mesh nebulizer during trans-nasal aerosol delivery

BACKGROUND: Compared to continuous vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN), inspiration synchronized VMN has shown increased inhaled dose during noninvasive ventilation; however, its use during aerosol delivery via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is still unknown. METHODS: An adult manikin was connected to a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Jie, Wu, Wei, Fink, James B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6994578/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32006290
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-020-0293-7
_version_ 1783493221368725504
author Li, Jie
Wu, Wei
Fink, James B.
author_facet Li, Jie
Wu, Wei
Fink, James B.
author_sort Li, Jie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Compared to continuous vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN), inspiration synchronized VMN has shown increased inhaled dose during noninvasive ventilation; however, its use during aerosol delivery via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is still unknown. METHODS: An adult manikin was connected to a dual-chamber model lung, which was driven by a critical care ventilator to simulate spontaneous breathing. A HFNC system was utilized with temperature at 37 ° C while gas flow at 5, 10, 20, 40, and 60 L/min. Inspiration synchronized and continuous aerosol generation were compared at different positions (at the inlet of humidifier vs close to patient). One milliliter of albuterol (2.5 mg/mL) was used in each run (n = 3). Collection filter was placed at the trachea and was removed after each run. Drug was eluted from the filter and assayed with UV spectrophotometry (276 nm). RESULTS: When nebulizer was placed close to patient, inhaled dose was higher with inspiration synchronized than continuous aerosol generation at all gas flows (p = 0.05) except at 5 L/min. When placed at the inlet of humidifier, compared to continuous, inspiration synchronized aerosol generated higher inhaled dose with gas flow set below 50% of patient inspiratory flow [23.9 (20.6, 28.3)% vs 18.1 (16.7, 19.6)%, p < 0.001], but lower inhaled dose with gas flow set above 50% of patient inspiratory flow [3.5 (2.2, 9.3)% vs 9.9 (8.2, 16.4)%, p = 0.001]. Regardless of breathing pattern, continuous aerosol delivered greater inhaled dose with nebulizer placed at humidifier than close to patient at all gas flows except at 5 L/min. CONCLUSION: When the HFNC gas flow was set higher than 50% of patient inspiratory flow, no significant advantage was found in inspiration synchronized over continuous aerosol. However, inspiration synchronized aerosol generated 30% more inhaled dose than continuous with gas flow set below 50% of patient inspiratory flow, regardless of nebulizer placement. Continuous nebulizer needs to be placed at the inlet of humidifier.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6994578
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69945782020-02-14 In vitro comparison between inspiration synchronized and continuous vibrating mesh nebulizer during trans-nasal aerosol delivery Li, Jie Wu, Wei Fink, James B. Intensive Care Med Exp Research BACKGROUND: Compared to continuous vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN), inspiration synchronized VMN has shown increased inhaled dose during noninvasive ventilation; however, its use during aerosol delivery via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is still unknown. METHODS: An adult manikin was connected to a dual-chamber model lung, which was driven by a critical care ventilator to simulate spontaneous breathing. A HFNC system was utilized with temperature at 37 ° C while gas flow at 5, 10, 20, 40, and 60 L/min. Inspiration synchronized and continuous aerosol generation were compared at different positions (at the inlet of humidifier vs close to patient). One milliliter of albuterol (2.5 mg/mL) was used in each run (n = 3). Collection filter was placed at the trachea and was removed after each run. Drug was eluted from the filter and assayed with UV spectrophotometry (276 nm). RESULTS: When nebulizer was placed close to patient, inhaled dose was higher with inspiration synchronized than continuous aerosol generation at all gas flows (p = 0.05) except at 5 L/min. When placed at the inlet of humidifier, compared to continuous, inspiration synchronized aerosol generated higher inhaled dose with gas flow set below 50% of patient inspiratory flow [23.9 (20.6, 28.3)% vs 18.1 (16.7, 19.6)%, p < 0.001], but lower inhaled dose with gas flow set above 50% of patient inspiratory flow [3.5 (2.2, 9.3)% vs 9.9 (8.2, 16.4)%, p = 0.001]. Regardless of breathing pattern, continuous aerosol delivered greater inhaled dose with nebulizer placed at humidifier than close to patient at all gas flows except at 5 L/min. CONCLUSION: When the HFNC gas flow was set higher than 50% of patient inspiratory flow, no significant advantage was found in inspiration synchronized over continuous aerosol. However, inspiration synchronized aerosol generated 30% more inhaled dose than continuous with gas flow set below 50% of patient inspiratory flow, regardless of nebulizer placement. Continuous nebulizer needs to be placed at the inlet of humidifier. Springer International Publishing 2020-01-31 /pmc/articles/PMC6994578/ /pubmed/32006290 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-020-0293-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research
Li, Jie
Wu, Wei
Fink, James B.
In vitro comparison between inspiration synchronized and continuous vibrating mesh nebulizer during trans-nasal aerosol delivery
title In vitro comparison between inspiration synchronized and continuous vibrating mesh nebulizer during trans-nasal aerosol delivery
title_full In vitro comparison between inspiration synchronized and continuous vibrating mesh nebulizer during trans-nasal aerosol delivery
title_fullStr In vitro comparison between inspiration synchronized and continuous vibrating mesh nebulizer during trans-nasal aerosol delivery
title_full_unstemmed In vitro comparison between inspiration synchronized and continuous vibrating mesh nebulizer during trans-nasal aerosol delivery
title_short In vitro comparison between inspiration synchronized and continuous vibrating mesh nebulizer during trans-nasal aerosol delivery
title_sort in vitro comparison between inspiration synchronized and continuous vibrating mesh nebulizer during trans-nasal aerosol delivery
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6994578/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32006290
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-020-0293-7
work_keys_str_mv AT lijie invitrocomparisonbetweeninspirationsynchronizedandcontinuousvibratingmeshnebulizerduringtransnasalaerosoldelivery
AT wuwei invitrocomparisonbetweeninspirationsynchronizedandcontinuousvibratingmeshnebulizerduringtransnasalaerosoldelivery
AT finkjamesb invitrocomparisonbetweeninspirationsynchronizedandcontinuousvibratingmeshnebulizerduringtransnasalaerosoldelivery