Reconciling in vitro and in vivo measurements of aerosol delivery from a metered-dose inhaler during mechanical ventilation and defining efficiency-enhancing factors

Effect of Interrupting Heated Humidification on Nebulized Drug Delivery Efficiency, Temperature, and Absolute Humidity During Mechanical Ventilation: A Multi-Lab In Vitro Study

Introduction: During mechanical ventilation (MV), inspired gases require heat and humidification. However, such conditions may be associated with reduced aerosol delivery efficiency. The practice of turning off heated humidification before nebulization and the impact of nebulization on humidity in a dry ventilator circuit remain topics of debate. This study aimed to assess the effect of turning off heated humidification on inhaled dose and humidity with nebulizer use during adult MV. Methods: A bronchodilator (albuterol) and two antibiotics (Colistimethate sodium and Amikacin sulfate) were nebulized with a vibrating mesh nebulizer placed at the humidifier inlet and in the inspiratory limb at the Y-piece. Additionally, albuterol was nebulized using a jet nebulizer in both placements. Aerosol particle size distribution was determined through a cascade impactor. Absolute humidity (AH) and temperature of inspired gases were determined with anemometer/hygrometers before, during, and after nebulization, before, during, and up to 60 minutes after interrupting active humidification. Aerosol collected on a filter distal to the endotracheal tube and on impactor stages were eluted and assayed by spectrophotometry. Results: The inhaled dose was greater when both nebulizers were placed at the humidifier inlet than the inspiratory limb at the Y-piece. Irrespective of the nebulizer types and placements, the inhaled dose either decreased or showed no significant change after the humidifier was turned off. The aerosol particle size ranged from 1.1 to 2.7 μm. With interruption of active humidification, humidity of inspired gas quickly dropped below recommended levels, and nebulization in dry ventilator circuit produced an AH between 10 and 20 mgH2O/L, lower than the recommended minimum of 30 mgH2O/L. Conclusion: Interrupting active humidification during MV before nebulization did not improve aerosol delivery efficiency for bronchodilator or antibiotics, but did reduce humidity below recommended levels.

The Effects of Inspiratory Flows, Inspiratory Pause, and Suction Catheter on Aerosol Drug Delivery with Vibrating Mesh Nebulizers During Mechanical Ventilation

Background: Some experts recommend specific ventilator settings during nebulization for mechanically ventilated patients, such as inspiratory pause, high inspiratory to expiratory ratio, and so on. However, it is unclear whether those settings improve aerosol delivery. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the impact of ventilator settings on aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation (MV). Methods: Salbutamol (5.0 mg/2.5 mL) was nebulized by a vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN) in an adult MV model. VMN was placed at the inlet of humidifier and 15 cm away from the Y-piece of the inspiratory limb. Eight scenarios with different ventilator settings were compared with endotracheal tube (ETT) connecting 15 cm from the Y-piece, including tidal volumes of 6-8 mL/kg, respiratory rates of 12-20 breaths/min, inspiratory time of 1.0-2.5 seconds, inspiratory pause of 0-0.3 seconds, and bias flow of 3.5 L/min. In-line suction catheter was utilized in two scenarios. Delivered drug distal to the ETT was collected by a filter, and drug was assayed by an ultraviolet spectrophotometry (276 nm). Results: Compared to the use of inspiratory pause, the inhaled dose without inspiratory pause was either higher or similar across all ventilation settings. Inhaled dose was negatively correlated with inspiratory flow with VMN placed at 15 cm away from the Y-piece (rs = -0.68, p < 0.001) and at the inlet of humidifier (rs = -0.83, p < 0.001). The utilization of in-line suction catheter reduced inhaled dose, regardless of the ventilator settings and nebulizer placements. Conclusions: When VMN was placed at the inlet of humidifier, directly connecting the Y-piece to ETT without a suction catheter improved aerosol delivery. In this configuration, the inhaled dose increased as the inspiratory flow decreased, inspiratory pause had either no or a negative impact on aerosol delivery. The inhaled dose was greater with VMN placed at the inlet of humidifier than 15 cm away the Y-piece.

Inhaled drug delivery: a randomized study in intubated patients with healthy lungs

BACKGROUND

The administration technique for inhaled drug delivery during invasive ventilation remains debated. This study aimed to compare in vivo and in vitro the deposition of a radiolabeled aerosol generated through four configurations during invasive ventilation, including setups optimizing drug delivery.

METHODS

Thirty-one intubated postoperative neurosurgery patients with healthy lungs were randomly assigned to four configurations of aerosol delivery using a vibrating-mesh nebulizer and specific ventilator settings: (1) a specific circuit for aerosol therapy (SCAT) with the nebulizer placed at 30 cm of the wye, (2) a heated-humidified circuit switched off 30 min before the nebulization or (3) left on with the nebulizer at the inlet of the heated-humidifier, (4) a conventional circuit with the nebulizer placed between the heat and moisture exchanger filter and the endotracheal tube. Aerosol deposition was analyzed using planar scintigraphy.

RESULTS

A two to three times greater lung delivery was measured in the SCAT group, reaching 19.7% (14.0-24.5) of the nominal dose in comparison to the three other groups (p < 0.01). Around 50 to 60% of lung doses reached the outer region of both lungs in all groups. Drug doses in inner and outer lung regions were significantly increased in the SCAT group (p < 0.01), except for the outer right lung region in the fourth group due to preferential drug trickling from the endotracheal tube and the trachea to the right bronchi. Similar lung delivery was observed whether the heated humidifier was switched off or left on. Inhaled doses measured in vitro correlated with lung doses (R = 0.768, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Optimizing the administration technique enables a significant increase in inhaled drug delivery to the lungs, including peripheral airways. Before adapting mechanical ventilation, studies are required to continue this optimization and to assess its impact on drug delivery and patient outcome in comparison to more usual settings.

The Use of an Inspiration-Synchronized Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer for Prolonged Inhalative Iloprost Administration in Mechanically Ventilated Patients-An In Vitro Model

Mechanically ventilated patients suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) frequently receive aerosolized iloprost. Because of prostacyclin's short half-life, prolonged inhalative administration might improve its clinical efficacy. But, this is technically challenging. A solution might be the use of inspiration-synchronized vibrating mesh nebulizers (VMNsyn), which achieve high drug deposition rates while showing prolonged nebulization times. However, there are no data comparing prolonged to bolus iloprost nebulization using a continuous vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMNcont) and investigating the effects of different ventilation modes on inspiration-synchronized nebulization. Therefore, in an in vitro model of mechanically ventilated adults, a VMNsyn and a VMNcont were compared in volume-controlled (VC-CMV) and pressure-controlled continuous mandatory ventilation (PC-CMV) regarding iloprost deposition rate and nebulization time. During VC-CMV, the deposition rate of the VMNsyn was comparable to the rate obtained with the VMNcont, but 10.9% lower during PC-CMV. The aerosol output of the VMNsyn during both ventilation modes was significantly lower compared to the VMNcont, leading to a 7.5 times longer nebulization time during VC-CMV and only to a 4.2 times longer nebulization time during PC-CMV. Inspiration-synchronized nebulization during VC-CMV mode therefore seems to be the most suitable for prolonged inhalative iloprost administration in mechanically ventilated patients.

Aerosol therapy in adult critically ill patients: a consensus statement regarding aerosol administration strategies during various modes of respiratory support

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice of aerosol delivery in conjunction with respiratory support devices for critically ill adult patients remains a topic of controversy due to the complexity of the clinical scenarios and limited clinical evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To reach a consensus for guiding the clinical practice of aerosol delivery in patients receiving respiratory support (invasive and noninvasive) and identifying areas for future research.

METHODS

A modified Delphi method was adopted to achieve a consensus on technical aspects of aerosol delivery for adult critically ill patients receiving various forms of respiratory support, including mechanical ventilation, noninvasive ventilation, and high-flow nasal cannula. A thorough search and review of the literature were conducted, and 17 international participants with considerable research involvement and publications on aerosol therapy, comprised a multi-professional panel that evaluated the evidence, reviewed, revised, and voted on recommendations to establish this consensus.

RESULTS

We present a comprehensive document with 20 statements, reviewing the evidence, efficacy, and safety of delivering inhaled agents to adults needing respiratory support, and providing guidance for healthcare workers. Most recommendations were based on in-vitro or experimental studies (low-level evidence), emphasizing the need for randomized clinical trials. The panel reached a consensus after 3 rounds anonymous questionnaires and 2 online meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

We offer a multinational expert consensus that provides guidance on the optimal aerosol delivery techniques for patients receiving respiratory support in various real-world clinical scenarios.

Influence of Mechanical Ventilation Modes on the Efficacy of Nebulized Bronchodilators in the Treatment of Intubated Adult Patients with Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

BACKGROUND

Little has been reported in terms of clinical outcomes to confirm the benefits of nebulized bronchodilators during mechanical ventilation (MV). Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT) could be a valuable method to elucidate this gap.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of nebulized bronchodilators during invasive MV with EIT by comparing three ventilation modes on the overall and regional lung ventilation and aeration in critically ill patients with obstructive pulmonary disease.

METHOD

A blind clinical trial in which eligible patients underwent nebulization with salbutamol sulfate (5 mg/1 mL) and ipratropium bromide (0.5 mg/2 mL) in the ventilation mode they were receiving. EIT evaluation was performed before and after the intervention. A joint and stratified analysis into ventilation mode groups was performed, with p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Five of nineteen procedures occurred in controlled MV mode, seven in assisted mode and seven in spontaneous mode. In the intra-group analysis, the nebulization increased total ventilation in controlled (p = 0.04 and ⅆ = 2) and spontaneous (p = 0.01 and ⅆ = 1.5) MV modes. There was an increase in the dependent pulmonary region in assisted mode (p = 0.01 and ⅆ = 0.3) and in spontaneous mode (p = 0.02 and ⅆ = 1.6). There was no difference in the intergroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Nebulized bronchodilators reduce the aeration of non-dependent pulmonary regions and increase overall lung ventilation but there was no difference between the ventilation modes. As a limitation, it is important to note that the muscular effort in PSV and A/C PCV modes influences the impedance variation, and consequently the aeration and ventilation values. Thus, future studies are needed to evaluate this effort as well as the time on ventilator, time in UCI and other variables.

Indian Guidelines on Nebulization Therapy

Inhalational therapy, today, happens to be the mainstay of treatment in obstructive airway diseases (OADs), such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and is also in the present, used in a variety of other pulmonary and even non-pulmonary disorders. Hand-held inhalation devices may often be difficult to use, particularly for children, elderly, debilitated or distressed patients. Nebulization therapy emerges as a good option in these cases besides being useful in the home care, emergency room and critical care settings. With so many advancements taking place in nebulizer technology; availability of a plethora of drug formulations for its use, and the widening scope of this therapy; medical practitioners, respiratory therapists, and other health care personnel face the challenge of choosing appropriate inhalation devices and drug formulations, besides their rational application and use in different clinical situations. Adequate maintenance of nebulizer equipment including their disinfection and storage are the other relevant issues requiring guidance. Injudicious and improper use of nebulizers and their poor maintenance can sometimes lead to serious health hazards, nosocomial infections, transmission of infection, and other adverse outcomes. Thus, it is imperative to have a proper national guideline on nebulization practices to bridge the knowledge gaps amongst various health care personnel involved in this practice. It will also serve as an educational and scientific resource for healthcare professionals, as well as promote future research by identifying neglected and ignored areas in this field. Such comprehensive guidelines on this subject have not been available in the country and the only available proper international guidelines were released in 1997 which have not been updated for a noticeably long period of over two decades, though many changes and advancements have taken place in this technology in the recent past. Much of nebulization practices in the present may not be evidence-based and even some of these, the way they are currently used, may be ineffective or even harmful. Recognizing the knowledge deficit and paucity of guidelines on the usage of nebulizers in various settings such as inpatient, out-patient, emergency room, critical care, and domiciliary use in India in a wide variety of indications to standardize nebulization practices and to address many other related issues; National College of Chest Physicians (India), commissioned a National task force consisting of eminent experts in the field of Pulmonary Medicine from different backgrounds and different parts of the country to review the available evidence from the medical literature on the scientific principles and clinical practices of nebulization therapy and to formulate evidence-based guidelines on it. The guideline is based on all possible literature that could be explored with the best available evidence and incorporating expert opinions. To support the guideline with high-quality evidence, a systematic search of the electronic databases was performed to identify the relevant studies, position papers, consensus reports, and recommendations published. Rating of the level of the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendation was done using the GRADE system. Six topics were identified, each given to one group of experts comprising of advisors, chairpersons, convenor and members, and such six groups (A-F) were formed and the consensus recommendations of each group was included as a section in the guidelines (Sections I to VI). The topics included were: A. Introduction, basic principles and technical aspects of nebulization, types of equipment, their choice, use, and maintenance B. Nebulization therapy in obstructive airway diseases C. Nebulization therapy in the intensive care unit D. Use of various drugs (other than bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids) by nebulized route and miscellaneous uses of nebulization therapy E. Domiciliary/Home/Maintenance nebulization therapy; public & health care workers education, and F. Nebulization therapy in COVID-19 pandemic and in patients of other contagious viral respiratory infections (included later considering the crisis created due to COVID-19 pandemic). Various issues in different sections have been discussed in the form of questions, followed by point-wise evidence statements based on the existing knowledge, and recommendations have been formulated.

Effect of pressures and type of ventilation on aerosol delivery to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients

Background

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), BiPhasic Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP), and high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) show some evidence to have efficacy in COVID-19 patients. Delivery during noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) or HFNC gives faster and more enhanced clinical effects than when aerosols are given without assisted breath. The present work aimed to compare the effect of BiPhasic Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) mode at two different pressures; low BiPAP (Inspiratory Positive Airway Pressure (IPAP)/Expiratory Positive Airway Pressure (EPAP) of 10/5 cm water) and high BiPAP (IPAP/EPAP of 20/5 cm water), with HFNC system on pulmonary and systemic drug delivery of salbutamol. On the first day of the experiment, all patients received 2500 μg salbutamol using Aerogen Solo vibrating mesh nebulizer. Urine samples 30 min post-dose and cumulative urinary salbutamol during the next 24 h were collected on the next day. On the third day, the ex-vivo filter was inserted before the patient to collect the delivered dose to the patient of the 2500 μg salbutamol. Salbutamol was quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).

Results

Low-pressure BiPAP showed the highest amount delivered to the lung after 30 min followed by HFNC then high-pressure BiPAP. But the significant difference was only observed between low and high-pressure BiPAP modes (p = 0.012). Low-pressure BiPAP showed the highest delivered systemic delivery amount followed by HFNC then high-pressure BiPAP. Low-pressure BiPAP was significantly higher than HFNC (p = 0.017) and high-pressure BiPAP (p = 0.008). No significant difference was reported between HFNC and high-pressure BiPAP. The ex-vivo filter was the greatest in the case of low-pressure BiPAP followed by HFNC then high-pressure BiPAP. Low-pressure BiPAP was significantly higher than HFNC (p = 0.033) and high-pressure BiPAP (p = 0.008). Also, no significant difference was found between HFNC and high-pressure BiPAP.

Conclusions

Our results of pulmonary, systemic, and ex-vivo drug delivery were found to be consistent. The low BiPAP delivered the highest amount followed by the HFNC then the high BiPAP with the least amount. However, no significant difference was found between HFNC and high BiPAP.

Delivered dose with jet and mesh nebulisers during spontaneous breathing, noninvasive ventilation and mechanical ventilation using adult lung models

What is the delivered dose with jet and mesh nebulisers during spontaneous breathing (SB), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), and mechanical ventilation (MV) using an adult lung model with exhaled humidity (EH)? The delivery of salbutamol sulfate (2.5 mg per 3 mL) with jet (Mistymax10) and mesh nebulisers (Aerogen Solo) was compared during SB, NIV, and MV using breathing parameters (tidal volume 450 mL, respiratory rate 20 breaths per min, inspiratory:expiratory ratio 1:3) with three lung models simulating exhaled humidity. A manikin was attached to a sinusoidal pump via a filter at the bronchi to simulate an adult with SB. A ventilator (V60) was attached via a facemask to a manikin with a filter at the bronchi connected to a test lung to simulate an adult receiving NIV. A ventilator-dependent adult was simulated through a ventilator (Servo-i) operated with a heated humidifier (Fisher & Paykel) attached to an endotracheal tube (ETT) with a heated-wire circuit. The ETT was inserted into a filter (Respirgard II). A heated humidifier was placed between the filter and test lung to simulate exhaled humidity (35±2°C, 100% relative humidity). Nebulisers were placed at the Y-piece of the inspiratory limb during MV and positioned between the facemask and the leak-port during NIV. A mouthpiece was used during SB. The delivered dose was collected in an absolute filter that was attached to the bronchi of the mannequin during each aerosol treatment and measured with spectrophotometry. Drug delivery during MV was significantly greater than during NIV and SB with a mesh nebuliser (p=0.0001) but not with a jet nebuliser (p=0.384). Delivery efficiency of the mesh nebuliser was greater than the jet nebuliser during MV (p=0.0001), NIV (p=0.0001), and SB (p=0.0001). Aerosol deposition obtained with a mesh nebuliser was greater and differed between MV, NIV, and SB, while deposition was low with a jet nebuliser and similar between the modes of ventilation tested.

Aerosol delivery via invasive ventilation: a narrative review

In comparison with spontaneously breathing non-intubated subjects, intubated, mechanically ventilated patients encounter various challenges, barriers, and opportunities in receiving medical aerosols. Since the introduction of mechanical ventilation as a part of modern critical care medicine during the middle of the last century, aerosolized drug delivery by jet nebulizers has become a common practice. However, early evidence suggested that aerosol generators differed in their efficacies, and the introduction of newer aerosol technology (metered dose inhalers, ultrasonic nebulizer, vibrating mesh nebulizers, and soft moist inhaler) into the ventilator circuit opened up the possibility of optimizing inhaled aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation that could meet or exceed the delivery of the same aerosols in spontaneously breathing patients. This narrative review will catalogue the primary variables associated with this process and provide evidence to guide optimal aerosol delivery and dosing during mechanical ventilation. While gaps exist in relation to the appropriate aerosol drug dose, discrepancies in practice, and cost-effectiveness of the administered aerosol drugs, we also present areas for future research and practice. Clinical practice should expand to incorporate these techniques to improve the consistency of drug delivery and provide safer and more effective care for patients.

Pressurized Metered Dose Inhaler Aerosol Delivery Within Nasal High-Flow Circuits: A Bench Study

Background: Obstructive patients may benefit from nasal high-flow (NHF) therapy, but the use of pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) has not been evaluated in this situation. Methods: Using an adult circuit and medium-sized cannula, we have tested different NHF rates, pMDI positions, breathing patterns, spacers, and spacer orientation. First, we evaluated albuterol delivery at the nasal cannula outlet. The second set of experiments made use of a nasopharyngeal cast to estimate the mass of albuterol potentially reaching the lungs. Albuterol was caught on filters placed at the cannula outlet and downstream of the nasal cast, and albuterol was quantified by spectrophotometry. Results: The highest amounts of albuterol delivered at the cannula outlet were observed with a 30 L/min flow rate (vs. 45 and 60 L/min) and placing the device close to the nasal cannula (in comparison with a position on the dry side of the humidification chamber). The use of a spacer was associated with higher delivery. The highest albuterol delivery was observed placing the spacer close to the nasal cannula, oriented for aerosol delivery following the gas flow and a 30 L/min NHF rate. Using this optimal setting, activating the pMDI at the beginning of inspiration (compared to expiration) increased albuterol delivery downstream of the nasopharyngeal cast. Whether in a quiet- or distress-breathing pattern, our measurements showed an amount of albuterol potentially delivered to the lungs exceeding 10% of the actuated dose in optimal conditions. Conclusions: The use of pMDIs is feasible to deliver albuterol within a NHF circuit. Using a spacer placed just upstream from the nasal cannulas, a low NHF rate and activating the pMDI at the beginning of inspiration was associated with drug delivery susceptible to induce bronchodilation, which will require to be tested in the clinical setting.

Assessment of different techniques for the administration of inhaled salbutamol in children breathing spontaneously via tracheal tubes, supraglottic airway devices, and tracheostomies

BACKGROUND

Perioperative respiratory adverse events account for a third of all perioperative cardiac arrests, with bronchospasm and laryngospasm being most common. Standard treatment for bronchospasm is administration of inhaled salbutamol, via pressurized metered dose inhaler. There is little evidence on the best method of attaching the pressurized metered dose inhaler to the artificial airway during general anesthesia.

AIM

The aim of this study is to investigate the best method to deliver aerosolized salbutamol via pressurized metered dose inhaler to the lungs of an anesthetized child.

METHODS

We measured salbutamol delivered by pressurized metered dose inhaler through different sized tracheal tubes, supraglottic airway devices, and tracheostomies in vitro for methods commonly employed for connecting the pressurized metered dose inhaler to the artificial airway. Breathing was simulated for patients weighing 3, 16, 50, and 75 kg. Pressurized metered dose inhaler actuation coincided with inspiration.

RESULTS

A pressurized metered dose inhaler combined with an in-line non-valved or valved spacer, or the direct method, when delivered via tracheal tube, was linked with improved delivered dose of salbutamol, compared to all other methods for 3 or 50 kg simulated patients weights. The delivered dose when using a non-valved spacer was greater than all methods for 16 and 75 kg patient weights. A spacer improved delivery for the flexible supraglottic airway device type, and there was no difference with or without a spacer for remaining types.

CONCLUSION

Via tracheal tube and non-valved spacer, the following doses should be delivered after single actuation of a 100 µg labeled-claim salbutamol dose: ~2 µg kg^-1 per actuation to a 3 kg neonate, ~1 µg kg^-1 per actuation to a 16 kg child, and ~ 0.5 µg kg^-1 per actuation for a 50-75 kg child. The least effective methods were the syringe, and the uni- and bidirectional adaptor methods, which require replacement by the direct method if a spacer is unavailable.

The utilization of aerosol therapy in mechanical ventilation patients: a prospective multicenter observational cohort study and a review of the current evidence

Background

Aerosol delivery via mechanical ventilation has been reported to vary significantly among different intensive care units (ICU). The optimal technique for using each aerosol generator may need to be updated with the available evidence.

Methods

A 2-week prospective multicenter observational cohort study was implemented to record aerosol delivery for mechanically ventilated adult patients in Chinese ICUs. Our data included the type of aerosol device and its placement, ventilator type, humidification, and aerosolized medication administered. A guide for the optimal technique for aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation was summarized after a thorough literature review.

Results

A total of 160 patients (105 males) from 28 ICUs were enrolled, of whom 125 (78.1%) received aerosol therapy via invasive ventilation. Among these 125 patients, 53 received ventilator-integrated jet nebulizer, with 64% (34/53) of them placed the nebulizer close to Y piece in the inspiratory limb. Further, 56 patients used continuous nebulizers, with 84% (47/56) of them placed the nebulizer close to the Y piece in the inspiratory limb. Of the 35 patients who received aerosol therapy via noninvasive ventilation, 30 received single limb ventilators and continuous nebulizers, with 70% (21/30) of them placed between the mask and exhalation port. Only 36% (58/160) of the patients received aerosol treatments consistent with optimal practice.

Conclusions

Aerosol delivery via mechanical ventilation varied between ICUs, and only 36% of the patients received aerosol treatments consistent with optimal practice. ICU clinicians should be educated on the best practices for aerosol therapy, and quality improvement projects aim to improve the quality and outcome of patients with the optimal technique for aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation are warranted.

Novel Toxicology Program to Support the Development of Inhaled VentaProst

Currently, off-label continuous administration of inhaled epoprostenol is used to manage hemodynamics during mitral valve surgery. A toxicology program was developed to support the use of inhaled epoprostenol during mechanical ventilation as well as pre- and postsurgery via nasal prongs. To support use in patients using nasal prongs, a Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), 14-day rat, nose-only inhalation study was performed. No adverse findings were observed at ∼50× the dose rate received by patient during off-label use. To simulate up to 48 hours continuous aerosol exposure during mechanical ventilation, a GLP toxicology study was performed using anesthetized, intubated, mechanically ventilated dogs. Dogs inhaled epoprostenol at approximately 6× and 13× the dose rate reported in off-label human studies. This novel animal model required establishment of a dog intensive care unit providing sedation, multisystem support, partial parenteral nutrition, and management of the intubated mechanically ventilated dogs for the 48-hour duration of study. Aerosol was generated by a vibrating mesh nebulizer with novel methods required to determine dose and particle size in-vitro. Continuous pH 10.5 epoprostenol was anticipated to be associated with lung injury; however, no adverse findings were observed. As no toxicity at pH 10.5 was observed with a formulation that required refrigeration, a room temperature stable formulation at pH 12 was evaluated in the same ventilated dog model. Again, there were no adverse findings. In conclusion, current toxicology findings support the evaluation of inhaled epoprostenol at pH 12 in surgical patients with pulmonary hypertension for up to 48 hours continuous exposure.

Recent advances in aerosol devices for the delivery of inhaled medications

Introduction: Aerosolized medications are commonly prescribed for the treatment of patients with pulmonary diseases, and there has been an increased interest in the development of aerosol delivery devices over the years. Technical innovations have advanced device design, novel features such as breath actuation, dose tracking, portability, and feedback mechanism during treatment that improved the performance of aerosol devices, and effectiveness of inhalation therapy.Areas covered: The purpose of this paper is to review recent advances in aerosol devices for delivery of inhaled medications.Expert opinion: Drug formulations and device designs are rapidly evolving to make more consistent dosing across a broad range of inspiratory efforts, to maximize dose and target specific areas of the diseased lung.

RNAi therapeutic strategies for acute respiratory distress syndrome

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), replacing the clinical term acute lung injury, involves serious pathophysiological lung changes that arise from a variety of pulmonary and nonpulmonary injuries and currently has no pharmacological therapeutics. RNA interference (RNAi) has the potential to generate therapeutic effects that would increase patient survival rates from this condition. It is the purpose of this review to discuss potential targets in treating ARDS with RNAi strategies, as well as to outline the challenges of oligonucleotide delivery to the lung and tactics to circumvent these delivery barriers.

Aerosol Therapy for Pneumonia in the Intensive Care Unit

Antibiotic aerosolization in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) allows very high concentrations of antimicrobial agents in the respiratory secretions, far more than those achievable using the intravenous route. However, data in critically ill patients with pneumonia are limited. Administration of aerosolized antibiotics might increase the likelihood of clinical resolution, but no significant improvements in important outcomes have been consistently documented. Thus, aerosolized antibiotics should be restricted to the treatment of extensively resistant gram-negative pneumonia. In these cases, the use of a vibrating-mesh nebulizer seems to be more efficient, but specific settings and conditions are required to improve lung delivery.

Novel methods for the assessment of safety pharmacology and toxicology parameters in anesthetized and ventilated dogs receiving inhaled drugs

INTRODUCTION

For nonclinical drug development, it is optimal if safety pharmacology and toxicology studies are performed in a model that reasonably represents the patient the drug is intended to treat. To simulate prolonged inhalation therapy in ventilated patients, GLP inhalation toxicology methods, including safety pharmacology endpoints, in anesthetized, intubated and mechanically ventilated dogs were developed. This model required establishment of a canine intensive care unit (ICU) capable of providing prolonged anesthesia (propofol infusion and morphine titration) and partial parenteral nutrition (dextrose, amino acids and lipids) while safety parameters were monitored.

METHOD

Telemetry was used to continuously monitor heart rate, ECG and blood pressure. Blood gas parameters were periodically measured while oxygen saturation and core temperature were reported continuously. Glucose was measured hourly while other standard clinical pathology (hematology, coagulation, clinical chemistry) samples were evaluated approximately every 12 h. Aerosols were administered continuously over 48 h by inhalation using a mesh nebulizer (Aerogen Solo) fed by a syringe pump into a humidified circuit of a critical care ventilator (LTV® 1000) ending in an endotracheal tube placed in the trachea. Animals were ventilated with pressure control ventilation targeting a respiratory minute volume of 2.0-3.5 l per minute (LPM). Peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) was maintained between 10 and 17 cm H₂O and inspiratory time was set to 1 s with an inspiratory:expiratory (I:E) ratio of 1:2. Ventilator parameters and anesthesia were adjusted to maintain normal PaCO₂ levels and adequate sedation, respectively. Novel methods were developed to determine dose and particle size in vitro as on-line measurements were not feasible during in vivo aerosol delivery.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Acceptable baseline measurements were established for all parameters over the 48-h evaluation period, qualifying the method as appropriate for assessment of GLP safety pharmacology and toxicology studies.

Inhaled amikacin for severe Gram-negative pulmonary infections in the intensive care unit: current status and future prospects

Recently, the use of nebulized antibiotics in the intensive care unit, in particular amikacin, has been the subject of much discussion, owing to unconvincing results from the latest randomized clinical trials. Here, we examine and reappraise the evidence in favor and against this therapeutic strategy; we then discuss the potential factors that might have played a role in the negative findings of recent clinical trials. Also, we call attention to several factors that are seldom considered by study developers and regulatory agencies, to promote translational research in this field and improve the design of future randomized clinical trials.

Effect of Heat Moisture Exchanger on Aerosol Drug Delivery and Airway Resistance in Simulated Ventilator-Dependent Adults Using Jet and Mesh Nebulizers

BACKGROUND

Placement of a heat moisture exchanger (HME) between aerosol generator and patient has been associated with greatly reduced drug delivery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of filtered and nonfiltered HMEs placed between nebulizer and patient on aerosol deposition and airway resistance (Raw) in simulated ventilator-dependent adults.

METHODS

An in vitro lung model was developed to simulate a mechanically ventilated adult (Vt 500 mL, RR 15/min, and PEEP 5 cmH₂O, using two inspiratory flow rates 40 and 50 L/min) using an intubated adult manikin with an endotracheal tube (8 mmID). The bronchi of the manikin were connected to a Y-adapter through a collecting filter (Respirgard II) attached to a test lung through a heated humidifier (37°C producing 100% relative humidity) to simulate exhaled humidity. For treatment conditions, a nonfiltered HME (ThermoFlo™ 6070; ARC Medical) and filtered HMEs (ThermoFlo™ Filter; ARC Medical and PALL Ultipor; Pall Medical) were placed between the ventilator circuit at the endotracheal tube and allowed to acclimate to the exhaled heat and humidity for 30 minutes before aerosol administration. Airway resistance (cmH₂O/L/s) was taken at 0, 10, 20, and 30 minutes after HME placement and after each of four aerosol treatments. Albuterol sulfate (2.5 mg/3 mL) was administered with jet (Misty Max 10; Airlife) and mesh (Aerogen Solo; Aerogen) nebulizers positioned in the inspiratory limb proximal to the Y-adapter. Control consisted of nebulization with no HME. Drug was eluted from filter at the end of the trachea and measured using spectrophotometry (276 nm).

RESULTS

Greater than 60% of the control dose was delivered through the ThermoFlo. No significant difference was found between the first four treatments given by the jet (p = 0.825) and the mesh (p = 0.753) nebulizers. There is a small increase in Raw between pre- and post-four treatments with the jet (p = 0.001) and mesh (p = 0.015) nebulizers. Aerosol delivery through filtered HMEs was similar (<0.5%) across the four treatments. Airway resistance was similar using the ThermoFlo Filter. With the PALL Ultipor, changes in Raw increased with mesh nebulizer after treatment (p = 0.005). Changes in resistance pre- and post-treatment were similar with both filtered HMEs.

CONCLUSION

The ThermoFlo™ nonfilter HME allowed the majority of the control dose to be delivered to the airway. Increases in Raw would likely not be outside of a tolerable range in ventilated patients. In contrast, filtered HMEs should not be placed between nebulizers and patient airways. Further research with other HMEs and materials is warranted.

Workshop Report: Aerosol Delivery to Spontaneously Breathing Tracheostomized Patients

The number of pediatric and adult patients requiring tracheostomy has increased. Many of them require aerosol therapy as part of their treatment. Practitioners have little guidance on how to optimize drug delivery in this population. The following is a report of a workshop dedicated to review the current status of aerosol delivery to spontaneously breathing tracheostomized patients and to provide practice recommendations.

Aerosol delivery with two ventilation modes during mechanical ventilation: a randomized study

BACKGROUND

Volume-controlled ventilation has been suggested to optimize lung deposition during nebulization although promoting spontaneous ventilation is targeted to avoid ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction. Comparing topographic aerosol lung deposition during volume-controlled ventilation and spontaneous ventilation in pressure support has never been performed. The aim of this study was to compare lung deposition of a radiolabeled aerosol generated with a vibrating-mesh nebulizer during invasive mechanical ventilation, with two modes: pressure support ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation.

METHODS

Seventeen postoperative neurosurgery patients without pulmonary disease were randomly ventilated in pressure support or volume-controlled ventilation. Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid labeled with technetium-99m (2 mCi/3 mL) was administrated using a vibrating-mesh nebulizer (Aerogen Solo(®), provided by Aerogen Ltd, Galway, Ireland) connected to the endotracheal tube. Pulmonary and extrapulmonary particles deposition was analyzed using planar scintigraphy.

RESULTS

Lung deposition was 10.5 ± 3.0 and 15.1 ± 5.0 % of the nominal dose during pressure support and volume-controlled ventilation, respectively (p < 0.05). Higher endotracheal tube and tracheal deposition was observed during pressure support ventilation (27.4 ± 6.6 vs. 20.7 ± 6.0 %, p < 0.05). A similar penetration index was observed for the right (p = 0.210) and the left lung (p = 0.211) with both ventilation modes. A high intersubject variability of lung deposition was observed with both modes regarding lung doses, aerosol penetration and distribution between the right and the left lung.

CONCLUSIONS

In the specific conditions of the study, volume-controlled ventilation was associated with higher lung deposition of nebulized particles as compared to pressure support ventilation. The clinical benefit of this effect warrants further studies. Clinical trial registration NCT01879488.

In vitro comparison of five nebulizers during noninvasive ventilation: analysis of inhaled and lost doses

BACKGROUND

Few studies on performance comparison of nebulizer systems coupled with a single-limb circuit bilevel ventilator are available. Most of these data compared the aerosol drug delivery for only two different systems. Using an adult lung bench model of noninvasive ventilation, we compared inhaled and lost doses of three nebulizer systems coupled with a single-limb circuit bilevel ventilator, as well as the influence of the nebulizer position.

METHOD

Three vibrating mesh nebulizers (Aeroneb(®) Pro, Aeroneb(®) Solo, and NIVO(®)), one jet nebulizer (Sidestream(®)), and one ultrasonic nebulizer (Servo Ultra Nebulizer 145(®)) coupled with a bilevel ventilator were tested. They were charged with amikacin solution (500 mg/4 mL) and operated at two different positions: before and after the exhalation port (starting from the lung). The inhaled dose, the expiratory wasted dose, and the estimated lost dose were assessed by the residual gravimetric method.

RESULTS

The doses varied widely among the nebulizer types and position. When the nebulizer was positioned before the exhalation port, the vibrating mesh nebulizer delivered the highest inhaled dose (p<0.001), the jet nebulizer the highest expiratory wasted dose (p<0.001), and the ultrasonic device the highest total lost dose (p<0.001). When the nebulizer was positioned after the exhalation port, the vibrating mesh nebulizers delivered the highest inhaled (p<0.001) and expiratory wasted doses (p<0.001), and the ultrasonic device the highest total lost dose (p<0.001). The most efficient nebulizers were NIVO and Aeroneb Solo when placed before the exhalation port.

CONCLUSIONS

In a single-limb circuit bilevel ventilator, vibrating mesh nebulizers positioned between the exhalation port and lung model are more efficient for drug delivery compared with jet or ultrasonic nebulizers. In this position, the improved efficiency of vibrating mesh nebulizers was due to an increase in the inhaled dose and a reduction in the exhaled wasted dose compared with placement between the ventilator and the expiratory port. Because of the high total lost dose, the ultrasonic device should not be recommended. Nebulizer placement before the exhalation port increased the inhaled dose and decreased the expiratory wasted dose, except for the jet nebulizer.

Aerosol Therapy in Adults Receiving High Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy

BACKGROUND

High flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFT) is increasingly used in intensive and emergency care departments. Patients suffering from respiratory failure, who are likely to benefit from HFT, may require aerosolized bronchodilators; therefore, combining nebulization with HFT may be relevant. This study aimed to identify the optimal settings for the implementation of nebulization within an adult HFT circuit.

METHODS

We assessed the mass and the particle size distribution of the aerosol emitted from the nasal cannula (inhalable mass) using mesh- and jet-nebulizers placed at various positions in the HFT circuit. Thereafter, the most relevant combination was used to evaluate the mass of salbutamol delivered downstream of an anatomical model reproducing aerosol deposition and leakage at the nasal and pharyngeal levels (respirable mass). The influence of HFT flow rate (30, 45, and 60 L/min), of breathing pattern (quiet and respiratory distress pattern) as well as of opened and closed mouth breathing was assessed.

RESULTS

The most efficient position was that of a nebulizer placed upstream from the humidification chamber (inhalable mass ranging from 26% to 32% of the nebulizer charge). Using a mesh nebulizer, we observed a respirable mass ranging from 2% to 10% of the nebulizer charge. Higher HFT flow rates and open mouth breathing were associated with a lower efficiency. Simulating respiratory distress (i.e., increasing the simulated patient inspiratory flow) did not hamper drug delivery as compared to a quiet breathing pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

Placing nebulizers within a HFT circuit upstream from the humidification chamber may enable to deliver clinically relevant masses of aerosol at the cannula outlet, but more importantly downstream of the nose and pharynx, even in case of high patients' inspiratory flow. This method of aerosol therapy is expected to produce a bronchodilatatory effect to be evaluated in the clinical settings.

Influence of inspiratory flow pattern and nebulizer position on aerosol delivery with a vibrating-mesh nebulizer during invasive mechanical ventilation: an in vitro analysis

BACKGROUND

Aerosol delivery during invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) depends on nebulizer type, placement of the nebulizer and ventilator settings. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of two inspiratory flow patterns on amikacin delivery with a vibrating-mesh nebulizer placed at different positions on an adult lung model of IMV equipped with a proximal flow sensor (PFS).

METHODS

IMV was simulated using a ventilator connected to a lung model through an 8-mm inner-diameter endotracheal tube. The impact of a decelerating and a constant flow pattern on aerosol delivery was evaluated in volume-controlled mode (tidal volume 500 mL, 20 breaths/min, inspiratory time of 1 sec, bias flow of 10 L/min). An amikacin solution (250 mg/3 mL) was nebulized with Aeroneb Solo(®) placed at five positions on the ventilator circuit equipped with a PFS: connected to the endotracheal tube (A), to the Y-piece (B), placed at 15 cm (C) and 45 cm upstream of the Y-piece (D), and placed at 15 cm of the inspiratory outlet of the ventilator (E). The four last positions were also tested without PFS. Deposited doses of amikacin were measured using the gravimetric residual method.

RESULTS

Amikacin delivery was significantly reduced with a decelerating inspiratory flow pattern compared to a constant flow (p<0.05). With a constant inspiratory flow pattern, connecting the nebulizer to the endotracheal tube enabled similar deposited doses than these obtained when connecting the nebulizer close to the ventilator. The PFS reduced deposited doses only when the nebulizer was connected to the Y-piece with both flow patterns or placed at 15 cm of the Y-piece with a constant inspiratory flow (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Using similar tidal volume and inspiratory time, a constant flow pattern (30 L/min) delivers a higher amount of amikacin through an endotracheal tube compared to a decelerating inspiratory flow pattern (peak inspiratory flow around 60 L/min). The optimal nebulizer position depends on the inspiratory flow pattern and the presence of a PFS.

NanoCluster budesonide formulations enable efficient drug delivery driven by mechanical ventilation

Agglomerates of budesonide nanoparticles (also known as 'NanoClusters') are fine dry powder aerosols that were hypothesized to enable drug delivery through ventilator circuits. These engineered powders were delivered via a Monodose inhaler or a novel device, entrained through commercial endotracheal tubes, and analyzed by cascade impaction. Inspiration flow rates and other parameters such as inspiration patterns and inspiration volumes were controlled by a ventilator. NanoCluster budesonide (NC-Bud) formulations had a higher efficiency of aerosol delivery compared to micronized budesonide with NC-Bud showing a much higher percent emitted fraction (%EF). Different inspiration patterns (sine, square, and ramp) did not affect the powder performance of NC-Bud when applied through a 5.0 mm endotracheal tube. The aerosolization of NC-Bud also did not change with the inspiration volume (1.5-2.5 L) nor with the inspiration flow rate (20-40 L/min) suggesting fast emptying times for budesonide capsules. The %EF of NC-Bud was higher at 51% relative humidity compared to 82% RH. The novel device and the Monodose showed the same efficiency of drug delivery but the novel device fit directly to a ventilator and endotracheal tubing connections. The new device combined with NanoCluster formulation technology allowed convenient and efficient drug delivery through endotracheal tubes.

Delivering antibiotics to the lungs of patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia: an update

Ventilator-associated pneumonia is a serious hospital-acquired infection, with 20-70% crude mortality and 10-40% estimated attributable mortality. Insufficient antibiotic concentrations at the infection site when these drugs are given intravenously may lead to poor outcomes, particularly when difficult-to-treat pathogens are responsible; for example, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, extended spectrum beta lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacilli, Acinetobacter spp. and/or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Direct drug delivery to the infection site via aerosolization combined with intravenous administration achieves concentrations exceeding MICs of the pathogens, even those with impaired susceptibility. Experimental and recent clinical results demonstrated our markedly improved ability to deliver aerosolized antibiotics to the lung with new-generation devices, for example, vibrating-mesh nebulizers. Convincing clinical data from a large randomized trial are still lacking to support the routine administration of aerosolized antibiotics to treat ventilator-associated pneumonia, even though some small-randomized trials' observations are encouraging.

Improved laboratory test methods for orally inhaled products

Existing pharmacopeial methods for the in vitro testing of orally inhaled products (OIPs) are simplified representations of clinical reality, as their objective is to provide metrics that are discriminating of product quality. Attempts to correlate measures such as fine particle fraction <5 µm aerodynamic diameter with in vivo measures of lung deposition have therefore been notoriously difficult to achieve. Although particle imaging-based techniques may be helpful to link in vitro to in vivo data as surrogates for clinical responses, a reappraisal of the purposes for laboratory-based testing of OIPs is required. This article provides guidance on approaches that may be helpful to develop clinically appropriate methods to assess OIP performance in the laboratory, with the ultimate goal of developing robust in vitro–in vivo relationships for the major inhaled drug classes.

Metered dose inhalers versus nebulizers for aerosol bronchodilator delivery for adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation in critical care units

BACKGROUND

Nebulizers and metered dose inhalers (MDI) have both been adapted for delivering aerosol bronchodilation to mechanically ventilated patients, but there is incomplete knowledge as to the most effective method of delivery.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of nebulizers and MDIs for bronchodilator delivery in invasively ventilated, critically ill adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to Week 19 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to Week 19 2012); CINAHL via EBSCOhost (1982 to Week 19 2012) and reference lists of articles. We searched conference proceedings and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in this field. There were no constraints based on language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including randomized cross-over trials where the order of the intervention was randomized, comparing the nebulizer and MDI for aerosol bronchodilation in mechanically ventilated adult patients in critical care units.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information where required. We collected information about adverse effects from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included three trials, two addressing the primary outcome measure of a reduction of airway resistance (measured as a reduction in interrupter and additional airway resistance) with a total of 28 patients (n =10, n =18) and two addressing adverse changes to haemodynamic observations with a total of 36 patients (n =18, n =18). Limitations in data availability and reporting in the included trials precluded meta-analysis and therefore the present review consisted of a descriptive analysis. Risk of bias in the included trials was judged as low or of unknown risk across the majority of items in the 'Risk of bias' tool.Cautious interpretation of the included study results suggests that nebulizers could be a more effective method of bronchodilator administration than MDI in terms of a change in resistance. No apparent changes to haemodynamic observations (measured as an increase in heart rate) were associated with either mode of delivery. Due to missing data issues, meta analyses were not possible. Additionally, small sample sizes and variability between the studies with regards to patient diagnoses, bronchodilator agent and administration technique mean that it would be speculative to infer definitive recommendations based on these results at this time. This is insufficient evidence to determine which is the most effective delivery system between nebuliser and MDI for aerosol bronchodilation in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Existing randomized controlled trials, including randomized cross-over trials where the order of the intervention was randomized, comparing nebulizer and MDI for aerosol bronchodilation in mechanically ventilated adult patients do not provide sufficient evidence to support either delivery method at this time.

Inhalation therapy in patients receiving mechanical ventilation: an update

Incremental gains in understanding the influence of various factors on aerosol delivery in concert with technological advancements over the past 2 decades have fueled an ever burgeoning literature on aerosol therapy during mechanical ventilation. In-line use of pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and nebulizers is influenced by a host of factors, some of which are unique to ventilator-supported patients. This article reviews the impact of various factors on aerosol delivery with pMDIs and nebulizers, and elucidates the correlation between in-vitro estimates and in-vivo measurement of aerosol deposition in the lung. Aerosolized bronchodilator therapy with pMDIs and nebulizers is commonly employed in intensive care units (ICUs), and bronchodilators are among the most frequently used therapies in mechanically ventilated patients. The use of inhaled bronchodilators is not restricted to mechanically ventilated patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma, as they are routinely employed in other ventilator-dependent patients without confirmed airflow obstruction. The efficacy and safety of bronchodilator therapy has generated a great deal of interest in employing other inhaled therapies, such as surfactant, antibiotics, prostacyclins, diuretics, anticoagulants and mucoactive agents, among others, in attempts to improve outcomes in critically ill ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

Aerosol therapy in patients receiving noninvasive positive pressure ventilation

In selected patients, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) with a facemask is now commonly employed as the first choice for providing mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU). Aerosol therapy for treatment of acute or acute-on-chronic respiratory failure in this setting may be delivered by pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) with a chamber spacer and facemask or nebulizer and facemask. This article reviews the host of factors influencing aerosol delivery with these devices during NIPPV. These factors include (1) the type of ventilator, (2) mode of ventilation, (3) circuit conditions, (4) type of interface, (5) type of aerosol generator, (6) drug-related factors, (7) breathing parameters, and (8) patient-related factors. Despite the impediments to efficient aerosol delivery because of continuous gas flow, high inspiratory flow rates, air leaks, circuit humidity, and patient-ventilator asynchrony, significant therapeutic effects are achieved after inhaled bronchodilator administration to patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Similarly to invasive mechanical ventilation, careful attention to the technique of drug administration is required to optimize therapeutic effects of inhaled therapies during NIPPV. Assessment of the patient's ability to tolerate a facemask, the level of respiratory distress, hemodynamic status, and synchronization of aerosol generation with inspiratory airflow are important factors contributing to the success of aerosol delivery during NIPPV. Further research into novel delivery methods, such as the use of NIPPV with nasal cannulae, could enhance the efficiency, ease of use, and reproducibility of inhalation therapy during noninvasive ventilation.

In vitro validation of a Respimat® adapter for delivery of inhaled bronchodilators during mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

Inhaled bronchodilators are frequently used in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there has been no efficient way to administer the long-acting anticholinergic tiotropium to mechanically ventilated patients. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the fine particle dose (FPD) output of a specifically designed adapter with other accessory devices for the delivery of bronchodilators using the Respimat® (RMT) inhaler by simulating the specific inhalation flow profiles of patients with COPD.

METHODS

Using characteristic flow profiles from COPD patients being weaned off mechanical ventilation, an in vitro study was performed analyzing the FPD achieved with different accessory devices (connectors, spacers, AeroTrachPlus valved holding chamber), which can be used to deliver drugs from pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDI) and RMT inhalers to artificial airways. Fenoterol pMDI, tiotropium RMT, and a fixed-dose combination of salbutamol and ipratropium delivered by pMDI or RMT, were used as bronchodilators. Aerosols were collected by a next-generation impactor.

RESULTS

The RMT inhaler, combined with a new in-line adapter, was superior to other inhaler device connector or spacer combinations in FPD delivery during simulated mechanical ventilation (p<0.01). The outcome with the RMT inhaler/RMT adapter combination during simulation of mechanical ventilation was comparable to the measurements with the RMT/AeroTrachPlus valved holding chamber during simulation of spontaneous breathing. The delivery rates of the RMT adapter were not significantly affected by the administered bronchodilators or by the type of artificial airway (endotracheal or tracheostomy tube) employed.

CONCLUSIONS

The RMT inhaler combined with the prototype in-line adapter was better than the other accessory device combinations in fine particle deposition of inhaled bronchodilators during mechanical ventilation. Further research is required to determine the clinical relevance of these in vitro findings.

Pharmacologic approaches to life-threatening asthma

Following a peak in asthma mortality in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we have been fortunate to see a substantial decrease in asthma deaths in recent years. Although most asthma deaths occur outside the hospital, near-fatal events are commonplace, with anywhere from 2-20% of patients with acute asthma admitted to intensive care, and 2-4% intubated for respiratory failure. Standard therapies for acute severe and near-fatal asthma include administration of systemic corticosteroids, and frequent or continuous inhaled beta agonists. Controversy remains regarding the optimal therapy of those who fail to respond to these initial treatments, those who remain at risk of acute respiratory failure, and patients requiring mechanical ventilation. There remain significant gaps in our knowledge regarding relative benefits of intravenous versus oral corticosteroids, intermittent versus continuous beta agonists, and the role of various adjunctive treatments including intravenous magnesium, systemic beta agonists, aminophylline, and helium-oxygen mixtures. Using models and radiolabeled aerosols, there is a greater understanding regarding effective administration of inhaled beta-agonists in ventilated patients. There is limited available evidence for treatment of near-fatal asthma, a fact reflected by the significant variability in asthma critical care practice. Much of the data guiding treatment in this setting has been generalized from studies of acute asthma in the ED and from general populations of hospitalized patients with acute asthma. This review will focus on pharmacologic approaches to life-threatening asthma by reviewing current guideline recommendations, reviewing the scientific basis of the guidelines, and highlighting gaps in our knowledge in treatment of refractory acute or near-fatal asthma.

Method to introduce mannitol powder to intubated patients to improve sputum clearance

BACKGROUND

Poor sputum clearance is a common problem encountered in intubated patients, which may cause airway obstruction, hypoxaemia, and increased risk of lower respiratory tract infection. This may result in longer intensive care unit (ICU) stay or even death. Dry powder mannitol has been shown to improve sputum clearance, and thus we developed a system to deliver it to intubated patients.

METHODS

This delivery system consists of a standard adult manual ventilation bag, a one-way duck-billed valve, and a dry powder inhaler (Osmohaler™) contained within a delivery chamber to allow positive pressure ventilation, which in turn, is connected in series to an endotracheal or tracheostomy tube. The aerosol is delivered by compressing the ventilation bag in a reproducible manner to generate positive pressure airflow to disperse the powder into the tracheal tube. We tested the powder output and characteristics of the powder in vitro from two endotracheal tubes (7.0 and 8.5 mm in diameter, 300 mm in length), and two tracheostomy tubes (7.0 mm in diameter and 95 mm in length; 90 mm in diameter and 115 mm in length).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 50 to 60% of the loaded dose of dry powder mannitol is delivered to the distal end of the tracheal tubes for both 4 × 40-mg and 4 × 80-mg capsules. The fine particle fraction (particles smaller than 5 μm) ranges from 20 to 31% of the loaded dose. Powder was emptied from each 40- and 80-mg capsule within 5 ± 1 puffs and 6 ± 1 puffs, respectively. This delivery system has been shown to consistently deliver a very high dose of powder with a favourable fine particle fraction to the distal end of a number of tracheal tubes. This has the potential for a number of clinical therapeutic applications in critically ill patients.

Delivery of Inhaled Beta Agonists by Metered-Dose Inhaler in Ventilated Patients — A Survey of Current Practice

For many years nebulisers have been the standard method of delivering beta agonists in ventilated patients, but metered-dose inhalers are increasingly seen as an effective alternative. Metered-dose inhalers are cheaper and less likely to cause infection. Clinical studies have shown inhalers to be as effective as nebulisers, but their use demands careful attention to detail. Minor alterations in inhaler technique can alter the delivered dose six-fold, varying from 0 to 38% of the total dose. We surveyed the frequency of metered-dose inhaler use and assessed the adequacy of the techniques currently employed. Our survey showed that only a minority (25%) of units were using inhalers, but that of these, 84% were using a dose or technique that was unlikely to deliver a therapeutic dose.

How best to deliver aerosol medications to mechanically ventilated patients

Pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and nebulizers are employed routinely for aerosol delivery to ventilator-supported patients, but the ventilator circuit and artificial airway previously were thought to be major barriers to effective delivery of aerosols to patients receiving mechanical ventilation. In the past two decades, several investigators have shown that careful attention to many factors, such as the position of the patient, the type of aerosol generator and its configuration in the ventilator circuit, aerosol particle size, artificial airway, conditions in the ventilator circuit, and ventilatory parameters, is necessary to optimize aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation. The best techniques for aerosol delivery during noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation are not well established as yet, and the efficiency of aerosol delivery in this setting is lower than that during invasive mechanical ventilation. The most efficient methods of using the newer hydrofluoroalkane-pMDIs and vibrating mesh nebulizers in ventilator-supported patients also require further evaluation. When optimal techniques of administration are employed, the efficiency of aerosolized drug delivery in mechanically ventilated patients is comparable to that achieved in ambulatory patients.

Aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation: from basic techniques to new devices

Pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and nebulizers are routinely employed for aerosol delivery in mechanically ventilated patients. A significant proportion of the aerosol deposits in the ventilator circuit and artificial airway, thereby reducing the inhaled drug mass. Factors influencing aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation differ from those in spontaneously breathing patients. The English language literature on aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation was reviewed. Marked variations in the efficiency of drug delivery with pMDIs and nebulizers occur due to differences in the technique of administration. Careful attention to five factors, viz., the aerosol generator, aerosol particle size, conditions in the ventilator circuit, artificial airway, and ventilator parameters, is necessary to optimize aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation. Factors influencing drug delivery during NPPV are not well understood, and the efficiency of aerosol delivery in this setting is lower than that during invasive mechanical ventilaiton. With an optimal technique of administration the efficiency of aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation is similar to that achieved during spontaneous breathing. Further research is needed to optimize aerosol delivery during NPPV.

Comparison of lung tissue concentrations of nebulized ceftazidime in ventilated piglets: ultrasonic versus vibrating plate nebulizers

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficiency of an Aeroneb Pro vibrating plate and an Atomisor MegaHertz ultrasonic nebulizer for providing ceftazidime distal lung deposition.

DESIGN

In vitro experiments. One gram of cetazidime was nebulized in respiratory circuits and mass median aerodynamic diameter of particles generated by ultrasonic and vibrating plate nebulizers was compared using a laser velocimeter. In vivo experiments. Lung tissue concentrations and extrapulmonary depositions were measured in ten anesthetized ventilated piglets with healthy lungs that received 1 g of ceftazidime by nebulization with either an ultrasonic (n = 5), or a vibrating plate (n = 5) nebulizer.

SETTING

A two-bed Experimental Intensive Care Unit of a University School of Medicine.

INTERVENTION

Following sacrifice, 5 subpleural specimens were sampled in dependent and nondependent lung regions for measuring ceftazidime lung tissue concentrations by high-performance liquid chromatography.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Mass median aerodynamic diameters generated by both nebulizers were similar with more than 95% of the particles between 0.5 and 5 microm. Lung tissue concentrations were 553 +/- 123 [95% confidence interval: 514-638] microg g(-1) using ultrasonic nebulizer, and 452 +/- 172 [95% confidence interval: 376-528] microg g(-1) using vibrating plate nebulizers (NS). Extrapulmonary depositions were, respectively, of 38 +/- 5% (ultrasonic) and 34 +/- 4% (vibrating plate) (NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Vibrating plate nebulizer is comparable to ultrasonic nebulizers for ceftazidime nebulization. It may represent a new attractive technology for inhaled antibiotic therapy.