Können Mesh-Vernebler die prähospitale Aerosoltherapie verbessern? Eine In-vitro-Studie an simulierten Notfallpatient*innen mit Atemnot

BACKGROUND: Nebulizers used to treat prehospital emergency patients should provide a high output efficiency to achieve a fast onset of therapeutic drug effects while remaining unaffected by the presence of supplementary oxygen flow or the patient’s breathing pattern. On the other hand, nebulizer performance is directly influenced by differences in device design, gas flow and patients’ breathing patterns. Several studies from emergency departments were able to demonstrate an improvement in patient outcome when using a mesh nebulizer instead of a jet nebulizer. Data or bench studies regarding prehospital care are non-existent. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present in vitro study was to evaluate which type of aerosol generator would best address the requirements of a prehospital adult emergency patient suffering from respiratory distress. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We evaluated the performance of a jet nebulizer (Cirrus™ 2, Intersurgical®) and two mesh nebulizers (Aerogen Solo® with USB controller, Aerogen Limited and M‑Neb® mobile, NEBU-TEC International med. Produkte Eike Kern GmbH) with the possibility of portable operation in an in vitro model of a spontaneously breathing adult emergency patient. One physiological and three pathological breathing patterns (distressed breathing pattern as well as stable and acute exacerbated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) were simulated. Nebulizer output and salbutamol lung deposition were measured at different oxygen flow rates using a face mask as the delivery interface. RESULTS: The mesh nebulizers produced a significantly higher aerosol output when compared to the jet nebulizer. The M‑Neb® mobile was able to significantly exceed the output of the Aerogen Solo®. Oxygen flow had the largest influence on the output of the jet nebulizer but hardly affected the mesh nebulizers. After a nebulization time of 10 min the M‑Neb® mobile also achieved the highest total salbutamol lung deposition (P < 0.001). Aerosol drug deposition was therefore mainly determined by the nebulizer’s drug output per unit time. The deposition could not be improved using a spacer but was strongly influenced by the simulated emergency patients’ breathing pattern. CONCLUSION: The use of mesh nebulizers might have the potential to improve the aerosol therapy of prehospital emergency patients. In general, mesh nebulizers seem to be superior to jet nebulizers regarding aerosol output per unit time and total lung deposition. The present data suggest that aerosol output and drug deposition to the collection filter in this simulated setting are closely connected and crucial for total salbutamol deposition, as the deposition could not be improved by adding a spacer. Aerosol drug deposition in simulated emergency patients’ lungs is therefore mainly determined by the nebulizer’s drug output per unit time. The level of oxygen flow used had the largest influence on the output of the jet nebulizer but hardly affected the output of the tested mesh nebulizers. Mesh nebulizers could therefore enable a demand-adapted oxygen therapy due to their consistent performance despite the presence of oxygen flow. A high respiratory rate was associated with a high drug deposition, which is clinically desirable in the treatment of patients in respiratory distress; however, drug underdosing must also be expected in the treatment of bradypneic patients. Further clinical studies must prove whether our findings also apply to the treatment of real prehospital emergency patients.