Effects of ventilator settings, nebulizer and exhalation port position on albuterol delivery during non-invasive ventilation: an in-vitro study

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.

Impact of gas humidification and nebulizer position under invasive ventilation: preclinical comparative study of regional aerosol deposition

Successful aerosol therapy in mechanically ventilated patients depends on multiple factors. Among these, position of nebulizer in ventilator circuit and humidification of inhaled gases can strongly influence the amount of drug deposited in airways. Indeed, the main objective was to preclinically evaluate impact of gas humidification and nebulizer position during invasive mechanical ventilation on whole lung and regional aerosol deposition and losses. Ex vivo porcine respiratory tracts were ventilated in controlled volumetric mode. Two conditions of relative humidity and temperature of inhaled gases were investigated. For each condition, four different positions of vibrating mesh nebulizer were studied: (i) next to the ventilator, (ii) right before humidifier, (iii) 15 cm to the Y-piece adapter and (iv) right after the Y-piece. Aerosol size distribution were calculated using cascade impactor. Nebulized dose, lung regional deposition and losses were assessed by scintigraphy using 99mtechnetium-labeled diethylene-triamine-penta-acetic acid. Mean nebulized dose was 95% ± 6%. For dry conditions, the mean respiratory tract deposited fractions reached 18% (± 4%) next to ventilator and 53% (± 4%) for proximal position. For humidified conditions, it reached 25% (± 3%) prior humidifier, 57% (± 8%) before Y-piece and 43% (± 11%) after this latter. Optimal nebulizer position is proximal before the Y-piece adapter showing a more than two-fold higher lung dose than positions next to the ventilator. Dry conditions are more likely to cause peripheral deposition of aerosols in the lungs. But gas humidification appears hard to interrupt efficiently and safely in clinical use. Considering the impact of optimized positioning, this study argues to maintain humidification.

The Effect of Different Interfaces on the Aerosol Delivery with Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer During Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation

Background: The effect of different interfaces on the aerosol delivery with vibrating mesh nebulizer during noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV) is not clear. Materials and Methods: Noninvasive ventilator and four interfaces were connected to IngMar ASL 5000 lung simulator. Meanwhile, the vibrating mesh nebulizer was connected to a ventilator circuit to simulate the nebulization during noninvasive ventilation. The nebulizer position was placed at proximal position (near the mask) and distal position (15 cm away from the mask); the inspiratory positive airway pressure (IPAP) and the expiratory positive airway pressure (EPAP) were set to 16/4, 16/8, 20/4, and 20/8 cmH₂O, respectively. The aerosol was collected through a disposable filter placed between the simulated lung and the mask, after which the aerosol delivery was calculated. Meanwhile, we recorded the inspiratory tidal volume and the mean inspiratory flow. Results: The aerosol delivery varied between 1.7% ± 0.0% and 21.1% ± 1.1%. Only when EPAP was set to 4 cmH₂O, the statistical difference in aerosol delivery was observed between the two types of interface, and between different leak port locations (p < 0.01; p = 0.04, respectively). When IPAP/EPAP was set to 16/4 and 20/4 cmH₂O, respectively, at different nebulizer positions, there was a statistical difference between the interface with the same type but different leak port locations and between the interface with same leak port location but different inner volumes (all p < 0.01). Also, there was a correlation between the aerosol delivery and interface volume (p < 0.01, R² = 0.55; p < 0.01, R² = 0.51, respectively), and between aerosol delivery and the intentional leak of interfaces (p < 0.01, R² = 0.59; p < 0.01, R² = 0.48, respectively). When EPAP was set to 4 and 8 cmH₂O, respectively, the aerosol delivery of nebulizer distal position was significantly higher than that of proximal position (12.2% ± 5.0% vs. 9.1% ± 4.1%, p < 0.05; 2.5% ± 0. 5% vs. 2.1% ± 0.3%, p < 0.01, respectively). Conclusion: Interfaces have a significant effect on aerosol delivery during NIV. The interfaces with different inner volumes, intentional leak, and leak port location may all have an effect on aerosol delivery. The addition of a 15 cm tube between the nebulizer and the mask significantly increases the aerosol delivery.

Comparison of Vibrating Mesh and Jet Nebulizers During Noninvasive Ventilation in Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background: Advances in aerosol technology have improved drug delivery efficiency during noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Clinical evaluation of the efficacy of aerosol therapy during NIV in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is very limited. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of bronchodilators administered through a vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN) and jet nebulizer (JN) during NIV in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD. Methods: Prospective randomized cross-over study included 30 patients treated with NIV for acute exacerbation of COPD in an acute care hospital. Patients were consented and enrolled after stabilization of acute exacerbation (3-5 days after admission). Subjects were randomly assigned into two treatment arms receiving salbutamol (2.5 mg): with VMN (Aerogen Solo) and JN (Sidestream) positioned between the leak port and the nonvented oronasal mask during bilevel ventilation with a single-limb circuit. Measurements (clinical data, pulmonary function tests [PFTs], and arterial blood gases) were performed at baseline, 1, and 2 hours after treatment. Results: All measured PFT parameters significantly increased in both groups, but numerically results were better after inhalation with VMN than with JN: for forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) (mean increase from baseline to 120 minutes-165 ± 64 mL vs. 116 ± 46 mL, p = 0.001) and for forced vital capacity (FVC) (mean increase-394 ± 154 mL vs. 123 ± 57 mL, p < 0.001). There was also a statistically significant reduction in respiratory rate and in Borg dyspnea score after therapy with VMN in comparison with the conventional JN. In both groups, there were improvements in PaCO₂, but with VMN these changes were significantly higher. Conclusion: Bronchodilator administration in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD during NIV with VMN resulted in clinically significant improvements in FVC and in Borg dyspnea score. Additional studies required to determine the impact on clinical outcomes.

Face Mask Leak Determines Aerosol Delivery in Noninvasive Ventilation

BACKGROUND

Aerosol transport during noninvasive ventilation follows the flow of pressurized gas through the noninvasive ventilation circuit, vented via leak port and face mask, and inhaled by the patient. Recommendations for nebulizer placement are based on in vitro models that have focused primarily on aerosol losses via the leak port; face mask leaks have been avoided. This study tested aerosol delivery in the setting of controlled face mask leak.

METHODS

Three nebulizer technologies were studied on a bench model using a lung simulator with a face mask placed onto a manikin head. Radiolabeled aerosol delivery (ie, inhaled mass) was determined by mass balance using filters and a gamma camera that tested the effects of nebulizer location and face mask leak. Low (15-20 L/min) and high (55-60 L/min) mask leaks were used to mimic realistic clinical conditions.

RESULTS

Inhaled mass (% nebulizer charge) was a function of nebulizer technology (with the nebulizer at ventilator outlet position: Aerogen 22.8%, InspiRx 11.1%, and Hudson 8.1%; P = .001). The location of the nebulizer before or after the leak port was not important (P = 0.13 at low leak and P = 0.38 at high leak). Aerosol delivery was minimal with high mask leak (inhaled mass 1.5-7.0%). Aerosol losses at the leak port at low mask leak were 28-36% versus 9-24% at high mask leak. Aerosol losses via the mask leak were 16-20% at low mask leak versus 46-72% at high mask leak. Furthermore, high face mask leak led to significant deposition on the mask and face (eg, up to 50% of the nebulizer charge with the Aerogen mask).

CONCLUSIONS

During noninvasive ventilation, nebulizer placement at the ventilator outlet, which is a more practical position, is effective and minimizes deposition on face and mask. Aerosol therapy should be avoided when there is high face mask leak.