Pulmonary uptake and modes of administration of inhaled nitric oxide in mechanically-ventilated patients

A novel, cassette-based nitric oxide delivery system with an advanced feedback control algorithm accurately delivers nitric oxide via the anesthesia machine independent of fresh gas flow rate and volatile anesthetic agent

Nitric oxide (NO), a selective pulmonary vasodilator, can be delivered via conventional ICU and anesthesia machine ventilators. Anesthesia machines are designed for rebreathing of circulating gases, reducing volatile anesthetic agent quantity used. Current cylinder- and ionizing-based NO delivery technologies use breathing circuit flow to determine NO delivery and do not account for recirculated gases; therefore, they cannot accurately dose NO at FGF below patient minute ventilation (MV). A novel, cassette-based NO delivery system (GENOSYL® DS, Vero Biotech Inc.) uses measured NO concentration in the breathing circuit as an input to an advanced feedback control algorithm, providing accurate NO delivery regardless of FGF and recirculation of gases. This study evaluated GENOSYL® DS accuracy with different anesthesia machines, ventilation parameters, FGFs, and volatile anesthetics. GENOSYL® DS was tested with GE Aisys and Dräger Fabius anesthesia machines to determine NO dose accuracy with FGF < patient MV, and with a Getinge Flow-i anesthesia machine to determine NO dose accuracy when delivering various volatile anesthetic agents. Neonatal and adult mechanical ventilation parameters and circuits were used. GENOSYL® DS maintained accurate NO delivery with all three anesthesia machines, at low FGF with recirculation of gases, and with all volatile anesthetic agents at different concentrations. Measured NO2 levels remained acceptable at ≤ 1 ppm with set NO dose ≤ 40 ppm. GENOSYL® DS, with its advanced feedback control algorithm, is the only NO delivery system capable of accurately dosing NO with anesthesia machines with rebreathing ventilation parameters (FGF < MV) regardless of anesthetic agent.

Modes of administration of nitric oxide devices and ventilators flow-by impact the delivery of pre-determined concentrations

BACKGROUND

Nitric oxide (NO) is a strong vasodilator, selectively directed on pulmonary circulation through inhaled administration. In adult intensive care units (ICU), it is mainly used for refractory hypoxemia in mechanically ventilated patients. Several medical delivery devices have been developed to deliver inhaled nitric oxide (iNO). The main purpose of those devices is to guarantee an accurate inspiratory NO concentration, whatever the ventilator used, with NO2 concentrations lower than 0.3 ppm. We hypothesized that the performances of the different available iNO delivery systems could depend on their working principle and could be influenced by the ventilator settings. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of seven different iNO-devices combined with different ICU ventilators' flow-by to reach inspiratory NO concentration targets and to evaluate their potential risk of toxicity.

METHODS

We tested seven iNO-devices on a test-lung connected to distinct ICU ventilators offering four different levels of flow-by. We measured the flow in the inspiratory limb of the patient circuit and the airway pressure. The nitric oxide/nitrogen (NO/N2) flow was measured on the administration line of the iNO-devices. NO and NO2 concentrations were measured in the test-lung using an electrochemical analyzer.

RESULTS

We identified three iNO-device generations based on the way they deliver NO flow: "Continuous", "Sequential to inspiratory phase" (I-Sequential) and "Proportional to inspiratory and expiratory ventilator flow" (Proportional). Median accuracy of iNO concentration measured in the test lung was 2% (interquartile range, IQR -19; 36), -23% (IQR -29; -17) and 0% (IQR -2; 0) with Continuous, I-Sequential and Proportional devices, respectively. Increased ventilator flow-by resulted in decreased iNO concentration in the test-lung with Continuous and I-Sequential devices, but not with Proportional ones. NO2 formation measured to assess potential risks of toxicity never exceeded the predefined safety target of 0.5 ppm. However, NO2 concentrations higher than or equal to 0.3 ppm, a concentration that can cause bronchoconstriction, were observed in 19% of the different configurations.

CONCLUSION

We identified three different generations of iNO-devices, based on their gas administration modalities, that were associated with highly variable iNO concentrations' accuracy. Ventilator's flow by significantly impacted iNO concentration. Only the Proportional devices permitted to accurately deliver iNO whatever the conditions and the ventilators tested.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and the Use of Inhaled Pulmonary Vasodilators in the COVID-19 Era: A Narrative Review

The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic of 2019 has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality, especially from severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). As of September 2022, more than 6.5 million patients have died globally, and up to 5% required intensive care unit treatment. COVID-19-associated ARDS (CARDS) differs from the typical ARDS due to distinct pathology involving the pulmonary vasculature endothelium, resulting in diffuse thrombi in the pulmonary circulation and impaired gas exchange. The National Institute of Health and the Society of Critical Care Medicine recommend lung-protective ventilation, prone ventilation, and neuromuscular blockade as needed. Further, a trial of pulmonary vasodilators is suggested for those who develop refractory hypoxemia. A review of the prior literature on inhaled pulmonary vasodilators in ARDS suggests only a transient improvement in oxygenation, with no mortality benefit. This narrative review aims to highlight the fundamental principles in ARDS management, delineate the fundamental differences between CARDS and ARDS, and describe the comprehensive use of inhaled pulmonary vasodilators. In addition, with the differing pathophysiology of CARDS from the typical ARDS, we sought to evaluate the current evidence regarding the use of inhaled pulmonary vasodilators in CARDS.

Current knowledge of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome

Acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS) continues to be a major cause of mortality in adult and pediatric critical care medicine. This article discusses the pulmonary sequelae associated with ALI and ARDS, the support of ARDS with mechanical ventilation, available adjunctive therapies, and experimental therapies currently being tested. It is hoped that further understanding of the fundamental biology, improved identification of the patient's inflammatory state, and application of therapies directed at multiple sites of action may ultimately prove beneficial for patients suffering from ALI/ARDS.

Therapeutic strategies for severe acute lung injury

OBJECTIVE

In the management of patients with severe acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome, clinicians are sometimes challenged to maintain acceptable gas exchange while avoiding harmful mechanical ventilation practices. In some of these patients, physicians may consider the use of "rescue therapies" to sustain life. Our goal is to provide a practical, evidence-based review to assist critical care physicians' care for patients with severe acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the PubMed database for clinical trials that examined the use of the following therapies in severe acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: recruitment maneuvers, high positive end-expiratory pressure, prone position, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, glucocorticoids, inhaled nitric oxide, buffer therapy, and extracorporeal life support.

STUDY SELECTION

All clinical trials that included patients with severe acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome were included in the review.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The primary author reviewed the aforementioned trials in depth and then disputed findings and conclusions with the other authors until consensus was achieved.

CONCLUSIONS

This article is designed to provide clinicians with a simple bedside definition for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome; to describe several therapies that can be used for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome with an emphasis on the potential risks and the indications and benefits; and to offer practical guidelines for implementation of these therapies.

Nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide concentrations during in vitro high-frequency oscillatory ventilation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to measure nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations, at various ventilatory settings and sampling sites, during in vitro inhaled NO and high-frequency oscillatory ventilation therapy [iNO-HFOV].

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a high-frequency oscillatory ventilator (model 3100A, SensorMedics, Yorba Linda, CA), a test lung (model VT-2A Ventilator Tester, Bio-Tek Instruments, Inc., Winooski, VT), nitric oxide delivery and NO/NO2 monitoring (Pulmonox II, Pulmonox, Tofield, Canada), and scavenging systems in this study. The ventilator frequency, amplitude, and inspired oxygen concentration were systematically changed at a fixed flow of NO. The concentrations of NO and NO2, sampled at four sites, were determined by an electrochemical method (Pulmonox II). The NO and NO2 concentrations were measured at the proximal part of the inspiratory limb (site 1), near the Y-piece (site 2), the carina of the test lung (site 3), and the bellows of the test lung (site 4).

RESULTS

The concentration of NO decreased significantly (P < .001) from the proximal port (site 11 of the inspiratory circuit (86.16 +/- 0.38 ppm) through the lung bellows (site 4) (70.08 +/- 0.23 ppm). The concentration of NO2 increased significantly (P < .001) from site 1 (3.25 +/- 0.04 ppm) through site 4 (19.4 +/- 0.19 ppm). However, the total concentration of NO + NO2 (NOx) remained unchanged at both site 1 and site 4. Increasing the frequency and amplitude of the ventilator significantly altered NO and NO2 concentrations. The NO2 concentration increased significantly (P < .0001) from 5.6 ppm to 18.1 ppm at site 4 when the fraction of inspired oxygen was increased from 0.25 to 0.93. The NO2 concentration also increased significantly (P < .0001) from 0.6 ppm to 18.7 when NO concentrations were independently increased from 12 ppm to 80 ppm.

CONCLUSIONS

During HFOV, the concentrations of NO and NO2 vary between sampling sites and also are influenced by the frequency, amplitude, and inspired oxygen concentration. NO2 concentrations in the lung were significantly increased above commonly accepted toxic concentrations during ventilation with high concentrations of NO (80 ppm) and high fractional concentrations of oxygen. The excessive increase in NO2 concentration at the "alveolar" level in our test lung model warrants confirmation in an in vivo model.