A narrative review on trans-nasal pulmonary aerosol delivery

Performance Characterisation of the Airvo2TM Nebuliser Adapter in Combination with the Aerogen SoloTM Vibrating Mesh Nebuliser for in Line Aerosol Therapy during High Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy

High flow oxygen (HFO) therapy is a well-established treatment in respiratory disease. Concurrent aerosol delivery can greatly expediate their recovery. The aim of this work was to complete a comprehensive characterisation of one such HFO therapy system, the Airvo2TM, used in combination with the Aerogen SoloTM vibrating mesh nebuliser. Representative adult, infant, and paediatric head models were connected to a breathing simulator via a collection filter placed at the level of the trachea. A tracheostomy interface and nasal cannulas were used to deliver the aerosol. Cannula size and gas flow rate were varied across the full operating range recommended by the manufacturer. The tracheal and emitted doses were quantified via UV-spectrophotometry. The aerosol droplet diameter at the exit of the nares and tracheal interface was measured via cascade impaction. High gas flow rates resulted in low emitted and tracheal doses (%). Nasal cannula size had no significant effect on the tracheal dose (%) available in infant and paediatric models. Higher gas flow rates resulted in smaller aerosol droplets at the exit of the nares and tracheostomy interface. Gas flow rate was found to be the primary parameter affecting aerosol delivery. Thus, gas flow rates should be kept low and where possible, delivered using larger nasal cannulas to maximise aerosol delivery.

In Vivo Deposition of High-Flow Nasal Aerosols Using Breath-Enhanced Nebulization

Aerosol delivery using conventional nebulizers with fixed maximal output rates is limited and unpredictable under high-flow conditions. This study measured regulated aerosol delivery to the lungs of normal volunteers using a nebulizer designed to overcome the limitations of HFNC therapy (i-AIRE (InspiRx, Inc., Somerset, NJ, USA)). This breath-enhanced jet nebulizer, in series with the high-flow catheter, utilizes the high flow to increase aerosol output beyond those of conventional devices. Nine normal subjects breathing tidally via the nose received humidified air at 60 L/min. The nebulizer was connected to the HFNC system upstream to the humidifier and received radio-labeled saline as a marker for drug delivery (99mTc DTPA) infused by a syringe pump (mCi/min). The dose to the subject was regulated at 12, 20 and 50 mL/h. Rates of aerosol deposition in the lungs (µCi/min) were measured via a gamma camera for each infusion rate and converted to µg NaCl/min. The deposition rate, as expressed as µg of NaCl/min, was closely related to the infusion rate: 7.84 ± 3.2 at 12 mL/h, 43.0 ± 12 at 20 mL/h and 136 ± 45 at 50 mL/h. The deposition efficiency ranged from 0.44 to 1.82% of infused saline, with 6% deposited in the nose. A regional analysis indicated peripheral deposition of aerosol (central/peripheral ratio 0.99 ± 0.27). The data were independent of breathing frequency. Breath-enhanced nebulization via HFNC reliably delivered aerosol to the lungs at the highest nasal airflows. The rate of delivery was controlled simply by regulating the infusion rate, indicating that lung deposition in the critically ill can be titrated clinically at the bedside.

Bronchodilator Efficacy of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in COPD: Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer Versus Jet Nebulizer

BACKGROUND

Jet nebulizers are commonly used for bronchodilator therapy in COPD. High-flow nasal cannula with vibrating mesh nebulizer (HFNC-VMN) is a recently developed system; however, few studies have compared the efficacy of bronchodilator administration via HFNC-VMN to jet nebulizer in stable COPD. This study aimed to compare the effect of salbutamol administered via HFNC-VMN versus jet nebulizer on airway and lung function in subjects with stable COPD.

METHODS

This randomized non-inferiority crossover physiologic study enrolled subjects with stable COPD. Salbutamol was nebulized via HFNC-VMN or jet nebulizer in random order with a 4-h washout period between crossover sequences. Spirometry, lung volume, and impulse oscillometry were performed at baseline and after each intervention. The primary outcome was change in FEV1 from baseline. Secondary outcomes included changes in other respiratory-related parameters and nebulization time compared between the 2 devices.

RESULTS

Seventeen subjects were enrolled. HFNC-VMN and jet nebulizer both significantly improved FEV1 from baseline (P = .005 and P = .002, respectively). The difference between respiratory resistance at 5 Hz and 20 Hz significantly decreased after HFNC-VMN compared to baseline (P = .02), while no significant change was observed after jet nebulizer (P = .056). Area of reactance and resonant frequency of reactance were both significantly decreased (P = .035 and P = .03, respectively), and respiratory reactance at 5 Hz significantly increased (P = .02) in the HFNC-VMN group compared to baseline indicating improved lung mechanics, with no significant changes with the jet nebulizer. HFNC-VMN had a shorter nebulization time (6 [5-9] min vs 20 [16-22] min, respectively, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Bronchodilator therapy via HFNC-VMN was not inferior to jet nebulizer for subjects with stable COPD and can significantly improve airway oscillometry mechanics and decrease nebulization time compared to jet nebulizer.

Towards More Precise Targeting of Inhaled Aerosols to Different Areas of the Respiratory System

Pharmaceutical aerosols play a key role in the treatment of lung disorders, but also systemic diseases, due to their ability to target specific areas of the respiratory system (RS). This article focuses on identifying and clarifying the influence of various factors involved in the generation of aerosol micro- and nanoparticles on their regional distribution and deposition in the RS. Attention is given to the importance of process parameters during the aerosolization of liquids or powders and the role of aerosol flow dynamics in the RS. The interaction of deposited particles with the fluid environment of the lung is also pointed out as an important step in the mass transfer of the drug to the RS surface. The analysis presented highlights the technical aspects of preparing the precursors to ensure that the properties of the aerosol are suitable for a given therapeutic target. Through an analysis of existing technical limitations, selected strategies aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of targeted aerosol delivery to the RS have been identified and presented. These strategies also include the use of smart inhaling devices and systems with built-in AI algorithms.

The Impact of Various High-Flow Nasal Cannula Devices on Transnasal Aerosol Delivery

BACKGROUND

Aerosol delivery via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has gained popularity due to the increased use of the modality for treating hypoxemic and hypercapnic respiratory failure. Various HFNC devices are available in the United States; however, the effectiveness of aerosol delivery via HFNC devices remains unclear. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the impact of various commercially available devices on transnasal aerosol delivery.

METHODS

This was a bench study that used a 2-chamber lung model, in which one chamber was connected to an adult manikin with anatomically correct upper-airway proportions. The other chamber was connected to a critical care ventilator used to simulate spontaneous breathing. A size large nasal cannula was placed at the nasal opening of the manikin. Five different HFNC devices (Hamilton-C1, OptiFlow, Airvo2, V60 Plus, and Vapotherm) were compared. Four flow settings were used on each device, with a vibrating mesh nebulizer placed at the humidifier. Salbutamol (2.5 mg/3 mL) was used during the experiments to quantify inhaled drug doses. A collection filter was placed between the manikin's trachea and the lung model. The drug was eluted from the filter and assayed with ultraviolet spectrophotometry (276 nm).

RESULTS

Among the 5 HFNC devices, OptiFlow had the highest inhaled dose at 10 L/min (mean ± SD 18.2% ± 1.2%). At 20 L/min, the Hamilton-C1 (mean ± SD 13.5% ± 0.4%) performed marginally better than the OptiFlow (mean ± SD 12.6% ± 1.9%) and Airvo2 (mean ± SD 12.8% ± 1%). At high flow settings (40-60 L/min), the inhaled dose of Hamilton-C1 was 2-3 times that of the Airvo2 and V60 Plus. When compared with the other devices, the mean inhaled dose with the Vapotherm was lower (0.9-2.5%). In all devices, the inhaled dose decreased as the flow increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Transnasal aerosol delivery was significantly impacted by the types of HFNC devices and flow settings. Nominal doses might need to be adjusted if changing HFNC devices or flow is not an option.

2022 Year in Review: Pediatric Asthma

Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children. Asthma is a heterogeneous disease characterized by variable, reversible airway obstruction and hyper-responsive airways. There is a high economic burden due to a child having poorly controlled asthma with one or more asthma exacerbations resulting in an emergency department visit or hospitalization in a year. Publications on diagnosis, treatment, and management of pediatric asthma are ongoing with over 2,549 papers published from January-November 2022. The intent of this paper is to summarize 8 key topics that have prompted discussions with local, regional, and national asthma experts due to a shift in clinical practice or lessons learned from the recent pandemic that may have future application.

Guidelines for high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in neonates (2022)

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy, which is important in noninvasive respiratory support, is increasingly being used in critically ill neonates with respiratory failure because it is comfortable, easy to setup, and has a low incidence of nasal trauma. The advantages, indications, and risks of HFNC have been the focus of research in recent years, resulting in the development of the application. Based on current evidence, we developed guidelines for HFNC in neonates using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The guidelines were formulated after extensive consultations with neonatologists, respiratory therapists, nurse specialists, and evidence-based medicine experts. We have proposed 24 recommendations for 9 key questions. The guidelines aim to be a source of evidence and reference of HFNC oxygen therapy in clinical practice, and so that more neonates and their families will benefit from HFNC.

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.

Respiratory Care Management of COPD Exacerbations

A COPD exacerbation is characterized by an increase in symptoms such as dyspnea, cough, and sputum production that worsens over a period of 2 weeks. Exacerbations are common. Respiratory therapists and physicians in an acute care setting often treat these patients. Targeted O2 therapy improves outcomes and should be titrated to an SpO2 of 88-92%. Arterial blood gases remain the standard approach to assessing gas exchange in patients with COPD exacerbation. The limitations of arterial blood gas surrogates (pulse oximetry, capnography, transcutaneous monitoring, peripheral venous blood gases) should be appreciated so that they can be used wisely. Inhaled short-acting bronchodilators can be provided by nebulizer (jet or mesh), pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI), pMDI with spacer or valved holding chamber, soft mist inhaler, or dry powder inhaler. The available evidence for the use of heliox for COPD exacerbation is weak. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is standard therapy for patients who present with COPD exacerbation and is supported by clinical practice guidelines. Robust high-level evidence with patient important outcomes is lacking for the use of high-flow nasal cannula in patients with COPD exacerbation. Management of auto-PEEP is the priority in mechanically ventilated patients with COPD. This is achieved by reducing airway resistance and decreasing minute ventilation. Trigger asynchrony and cycle asynchrony are addressed to improve patient-ventilator interaction. Patients with COPD should be extubated to NIV. Additional high-level evidence is needed before widespread use of extracorporeal CO2 removal. Care coordination can improve the effectiveness of care for patients with COPD exacerbation. Evidence-based practices improve outcomes in patients with COPD exacerbation.

Aerosol delivery in models of pediatric high flow nasal oxygen and mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

Aerosol drug delivery during high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are key respiratory care strategies available for the treatment of pediatric patients. We aimed to quantify the impact of different HFNO and IMV set-ups on tracheal drug delivery via a vibrating mesh nebuliser (VMN).

METHODS

Percent tracheal dose via VMN was quantified during HFNO therapy and IMV in a benchtop model of a 9-month-old infant. Under HFNO, 3 cannula sizes were used at 3 flow rate settings with the VMN placed at the dry side of the humidifier. Under IMV, tracheal dose when VMN was placed at the dry side of the humidifier, 15 cm from the wye and between the wye and endotracheal tube (ETT) was assessed. Salbutamol at 2.5 mg/2.5 ml (1 mg/ml) was used for each test (N = 5). The impact of VMN refill on circuit pressure under HFNO and IMV was also assessed.

RESULTS

Tracheal dose was highest during HFNO with the largest cannula size (OPT318) set to the lowest flow rate setting of 2 L/min (liter per minute) (5.80 ± 0.17%). Increasing flow rate reduced tracheal drug delivery for all cannulas. For IMV, VMN on the dry side of the humidifier and between the wye and ETT gave optimal drug delivery (4.49 ± 0.14% vs. 4.43 ± 0.26% respectively). VMN refill did not impact circuit pressure for either HFNO therapy or IMV.

CONCLUSIONS

Gas flow rate and cannula size during HFNO and VMN position during IMV has a significant effect on tracheal drug delivery in a pediatric setting.

Not all nebulizers are created equal: Considerations in choosing a nebulizer for aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation

INTRODUCTION

Aerosol therapy is commonly prescribed in the mechanically ventilated patient. Jet nebulizers (JN) and vibrating mesh nebulizers (VMN) are the most common nebulizer types, however, despite VMN's well established superior performance, JN use remains the most commonly used of the two. In this review, we describe the key differentiators between nebulizer types and how considered selection of nebulizer type may enable successful therapy and the optimization of drug/device combination products.

AREAS COVERED

Following a review of the published literature up to February 2023, the current state of the art in relation to JN and VMN is discussed under the headings of in vitro performance of nebulizers during mechanical ventilation, respective compatibility with formulations for inhalation, clinical trials making use of VMN during mechanical ventilation, distribution of nebulized aerosol throughout the lung, measuring the respective performance of nebulizers in the patient and non-drug delivery considerations in nebulizer choice.

EXPERT OPINION

Whether for standard care, or the development of drug/device combination products, the choice of nebulizer type should not be made without consideration of the unique needs of the combination of each of drug, disease and patient types, as well as target site for deposition, and healthcare professional and patient safety.

Mechanical Ventilation and Respiratory Support in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

Children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit often require respiratory support for the treatment of respiratory distress and failure. Respiratory support comprises both noninvasive modalities (ie, heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula, continuous positive airway pressure, bilevel positive airway pressure, negative pressure ventilation) and invasive mechanical ventilation. In this article, we review the various essential elements and considerations involved in the planning and application of respiratory support in the treatment of the critically ill children.

Mitigating Fugitive Aerosols During Aerosol Delivery via High-Flow Nasal Cannula Devices

BACKGROUND

Aerosol delivery via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has attracted clinical interest in recent years. However, both HFNC and nebulization are categorized as aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). In vitro studies raised concerns that AGPs had high transmission risk. Very few in vivo studies examined fugitive aerosols with nebulization via HFNC, and effective methods to mitigate aerosol dispersion are unknown.

METHODS

Two HFNC devices (Airvo 2 and Vapotherm) with or without a vibrating mesh nebulizer were compared; HFNC alone, surgical mask over HFNC interface, and HFNC with face tent scavenger were used in a random order for 9 healthy volunteers. Fugitive aerosol concentrations at sizes of 0.3-10.0 μm were continuously measured by particle sizers placed at 1 and 3 ft from participants. On a different day, 6 of the 9 participants received 6 additional nebulizer treatments via vibrating mesh nebulizer or small-volume nebulizer (SVN) with a face mask or a mouthpiece with/without an expiratory filter. In vitro simulation was employed to quantify inhaled dose of albuterol with vibrating mesh nebulizer via Airvo 2 and Vapotherm.

RESULTS

Compared to baseline, neither HFNC device generated higher aerosol concentrations. Compared to HFNC alone, vibrating mesh nebulizer via Airvo 2 generated higher 0.3-1.0 μm particles (all P < .05), but vibrating mesh nebulizer via Vapotherm did not. Concentrations of 1.0-3.0 μm particles with vibrating mesh nebulizer via Airvo 2 were similar with vibrating mesh nebulizer and a mouthpiece/face mask but less than SVN with a mouthpiece/face mask (all P < .05). Placing a surgical mask over HFNC during nebulization reduced 0.5-1.0 μm particles (all P < .05) to levels similar to the use of a nebulizer with mouthpiece and expiratory filter. In vitro the inhaled dose of albuterol with vibrating mesh nebulizer via Airvo 2 was ≥ 6 times higher than vibrating mesh nebulizer via Vapotherm.

CONCLUSIONS

During aerosol delivery via HFNC, Airvo 2 generated higher inhaled dose and consequently higher fugitive aerosols than Vapotherm. Simple measures, such as placing a surgical mask over nasal cannula during nebulization via HFNC, could effectively reduce fugitive aerosol concentrations.

Evaluation of aerosolized epoprostenol for hypoxemia in non-intubated patients with coronavirus disease 2019

Objectives

Patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) frequently present with a febrile illness that may progress to pneumonia and hypoxic respiratory failure. Aerosolized epoprostenol (aEPO) has been evaluated in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and refractory hypoxemia. A paucity of literature has assessed the impact of aEPO in patients with SARS-CoV-2 receiving oxygen support with high flow nasal cannula (HFNC). The objective of this study was to evaluate whether aEPO added to HFNC prevents intubation and/or prolong time to intubation compared to controls only treated with HFNC, guided by oxygen saturation goals.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective study of adult patients infected with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) and admitted to the medical intensive care unit. A total of 60 patients were included. Thirty patients were included in the treatment, and 30 in the control group, respectively. Among patients included in the treatment group, response to therapy was assessed. The need for mechanical ventilation and hospital mortality between responders vs. non-responders was evaluated.

Results

The primary outcome of mechanical ventilation was not statistically different between groups. Time from HFNC initiation to intubation was significantly prolonged in the treatment group compared to the control group (5.7 days vs. 2.3 days, P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in mortality or length of stay. Patients deemed responders to aEPO had a lower rate of mechanical ventilation (50% vs 88%, P = 0.025) and mortality (21% vs 63%, P = 0.024), compared with non-responders.

Conclusion

The utilization of aEPO in COVID-19 patients treated with HFNC is not associated with a reduction in the rate of mechanical ventilation. Nevertheless, the application of this strategy may prolong the time to invasive mechanical ventilation, without affecting other clinical outcomes.

The Impact of Head Model Choice on the In Vitro Evaluation of Aerosol Drug Delivery

There are variations in the values reported for aerosol drug delivery across in vitro experiments throughout the published literature, and often with the same devices or similar experimental setups. Factors contributing to this variability include, but are not limited to device type, equipment settings, drug type and quantification methods. This study assessed the impact of head model choice on aerosol drug delivery using six different adults and three different paediatric head models in combination with a facemask, mouthpiece, and high-flow nasal cannula. Under controlled test conditions, the quantity of drug collected varied depending on the choice of head model. Head models vary depending on a combination of structural design differences, facial features (size and structure), internal volume measurements and airway geometries and these variations result in the differences in aerosol delivery. Of the widely available head models used in this study, only three were seen to closely predict in vivo aerosol delivery performance in adults compared with published scintigraphy data. Further, this testing identified the limited utility of some head models under certain test conditions, for example, the range reported across head models was aerosol drug delivery of 2.62 ± 2.86% to 37.79 ± 1.55% when used with a facemask. For the first time, this study highlights the impact of head model choice on reported aerosol drug delivery within a laboratory setting and contributes to explaining the differences in values reported within the literature.

Optimizing high-flow nasal cannula flow settings in adult hypoxemic patients based on peak inspiratory flow during tidal breathing

Background

Optimal flow settings during high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy are unknown. We investigated the optimal flow settings during HFNC therapy based on breathing pattern and tidal inspiratory flows in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF).

Methods

We conducted a prospective clinical study in adult hypoxemic patients treated by HFNC with a fraction of inspired oxygen (F_IO₂) ≥ 0.4. Patient’s peak tidal inspiratory flow (PTIF) was measured and HFNC flows were set to match individual PTIF and then increased by 10 L/min every 5–10 min up to 60 L/min. F_IO₂ was titrated to maintain pulse oximetry (SpO₂) of 90–97%. SpO₂/F_IO₂, respiratory rate (RR), ROX index [(SpO₂/F_IO₂)/RR], and patient comfort were recorded after 5–10 min on each setting. We also conducted an in vitro study to explore the relationship between the HFNC flows and the tracheal F_IO₂, peak inspiratory and expiratory pressures.

Results

Forty-nine patients aged 58.0 (SD 14.1) years were enrolled. At enrollment, HFNC flow was set at 45 (38, 50) L/min, with an F_IO₂ at 0.62 (0.16) to obtain an SpO₂/F_IO₂ of 160 (40). Mean PTIF was 34 (9) L/min. An increase in HFNC flows up to two times of the individual patient’s PTIF, incrementally improved oxygenation but the ROX index plateaued with HFNC flows of 1.34–1.67 times the individual PTIF. In the in vitro study, when the HFNC flow was set higher than PTIF, tracheal peak inspiratory and expiratory pressures increased as HFNC flow increased but the F_IO₂ did not change.

Conclusion

Mean PTIF values in most patients with AHRF were between 30 and 40 L/min. We observed improvement in oxygenation with HFNC flows set above patient PTIF. Thus, a pragmatic approach to set optimal flows in patients with AHRF would be to initiate HFNC flow at 40 L/min and titrate the flow based on improvement in ROX index and patient tolerance.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03738345). Registered on November 13th, 2018. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03738345?term=NCT03738345&draw=2&rank=1

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13613-021-00949-8.

The Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Device, Nebulizer Type, and Placement on Trans-Nasal Aerosol Drug Delivery: An In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND

Aerosol delivery via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been increasingly used in recent years. However, the effects of different HFNC devices, nebulizer types, and placement on aerosol deposition remain largely unknown.

METHODS

An adult manikin with anatomically correct upper airway was used with a collection filter placed between the manikin's trachea and a breathing simulator, composed of a dual-chamber model lung driven by a critical care ventilator. Three HFNC device configurations were compared, with vibrating mesh nebulizer and small-volume nebulizer placed at the humidifier (inlet for Optiflow and outlet for Airvo 2) and proximal to the nasal cannula at gas flows of 10, 20, 40 and 60 L/min, in quiet and distressed breathing patterns. Albuterol (2.5 mg) was nebulized for each condition (no. = 3). The drug was eluted from the collection filter and assayed with ultraviolet spectrophotometry (276 nm).

RESULTS

At all settings, except when a nebulizer was placed proximal to the nasal cannula with the Optiflow and when the HFNC flow was set at 60 L/min, the vibrating mesh nebulizer generated a higher inhaled dose than did the small-volume nebulizer (all P < .05). With the exception of distressed breathing at an HFNC flow of 10 L/min, the inhaled dose with the vibrating mesh nebulizer placed at the humidifier was greater than with the vibrating mesh nebulizer placed proximal to the nasal cannula (all P < .05), Optiflow provided a higher inhaled dose than did Airvo 2 with either AirSpiral or 900PT501 circuits with the vibrating mesh nebulizer placed at the humidifier (all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

During transnasal aerosol delivery, the vibrating mesh nebulizer generated a higher inhaled dose than did the small-volume nebulizer when the nebulizer was placed at the humidifier. With the vibrating mesh nebulizer placed at the humidifier and an HFNC flow > 10 L/min, the inhaled dose was higher than with the vibrating mesh nebulizer placed proximal to the nasal cannula, and the inhaled dose was higher with Optiflow than with Airvo 2.

Bronchodilator Delivery via High-Flow Nasal Cannula: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare the Effects of Gas Flows

(1) Background: Aerosol delivery via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has attracted increasing clinical interest. In vitro studies report that the ratio of HFNC gas flow to patient inspiratory flow (GF:IF) is a key factor in the efficiency of trans-nasal aerosol delivery. (2) Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, patients with a history of COPD or asthma and documented positive responses to inhaled bronchodilators in an outpatient pulmonary function laboratory were recruited. Subjects were randomized to receive inhalation at gas flow ratio settings of: GF:IF = 0.5, GF:IF = 1.0, or GF = 50 L/min. Subjects were assigned to inhale saline (control) followed by salbutamol via HFNC with cumulative doses of 0.5 mg, 1.5 mg, 3.5 mg, and 7.5 mg. Spirometry was performed at baseline and 10-12 min after each inhalation. (3) Results: 75 subjects (49 asthma and 26 COPD) demonstrating bronchodilator response were enrolled. Per the robust ATS/ERS criteria no difference was observed between flows, however using the criteria of post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁) reaching the screening post-bronchodilator FEV₁ with salbutamol, a higher percentage of subjects receiving GF:IF = 0.5 met the criteria at a cumulative dose of 1.5 mg than those receiving GF:IF = 1.0, and GF = 50 L/min (64% vs. 29% vs. 27%, respectively, p = 0.011). Similarly at 3.5 mg (88% vs. 54% vs. 46%, respectively, p = 0.005). The effective dose at GF:IF = 0.5 was 1.5 mg while for GF = 50 L/min it was 3.5 mg. (4) Conclusions: During salbutamol delivery via HFNC, cumulative doses of 1.5 mg to 3.5 mg resulted in effective bronchodilation. Applying the robust ATS/ERS criteria no difference was observed between the flows, however using the more sensitive criteria of subjects reaching post screening FEV₁ to salbutamol via HFNC, a higher number of subjects responded to the doses of 0.5 mg and 1.5 mg when HFNC gas flow was set at 50% of patient peak inspiratory flow.

Worldwide Clinical Practice of High-Flow Nasal Cannula and Concomitant Aerosol Therapy in the Adult ICU Setting

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy has been broadly used. However, no consensus has been achieved on the practical implementation of HFNC and how to provide aerosol delivery during HFNC therapy in adult patients.

METHODS

An online anonymous questionnaire survey endorsed by 4 academic societies from America, Europe, mainland China, and Taiwan was administered from May to December 2019. Clinicians who had worked in adult ICUs for > 1 year and had used HFNC to treat patients within 30 days were included.

RESULTS

A total of 2,279 participants clicked on the survey link, 1,358 respondents completed the HFNC section of the questionnaire, whereas 1,014 completed the whole survey. Postextubation hypoxemia and moderate hypoxemia were major indications for HFNC. The initial flow was mainly set at 40-50 L/min. Aerosol delivery via HFNC was used by 24% of the participants (248/1,014), 30% (74/248) of whom reported reducing flow during aerosol delivery. For the patients who required aerosol treatment during HFNC therapy, 40% of the participants (403/1,014) reported placing a nebulizer with a mask or mouthpiece while pursuing HFNC whereas 33% (331/1,014) discontinued HFNC to use conventional aerosol devices. A vibrating mesh nebulizer was the most commonly used nebulizer (40%) and was mainly placed at the inlet of the humidifier.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical utilization of HFNC was variable, as were indications, flow settings, and criteria for adjustment. Many practices associated with concomitant aerosol therapy were not consistent with available evidence for optimal use. More efforts are warranted to close the knowledge gap.

In-vitro and in-vivo comparisons of high versus low concentrations of inhaled epoprostenol to adult intubated patients

BACKGROUND

Inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO) has been shown to reduce pulmonary artery pressure and improve oxygenation. iEPO is mainly delivered via a syringe pump with feed tubing connected to a vibrating mesh nebulizer with high or low formulation concentration delivery.

METHODS

An in vitro study and a two-period retrospective case-control study were implemented. The in vitro study compared iEPO delivery via invasive ventilation at low concentrations of 7.5, and 15 mcg/mL and high concentration at 30 mcg/mL, to deliver the ordered dose of 30 and 50 ng/kg/min for three clinical scenarios with predicted body weight of 50, 70 and 90 kg. While in the clinical study, adult patients receiving iEPO via invasive ventilation to treat refractory hypoxemia, pulmonary hypertension, or right ventricular failure were included. 80 patients received low concentration iEPO at multiple concentrations (2.5, 7.5, and 15 mcg/mL, depending on the ordered dose) from 2015 to 2017, while 84 patients received high concentration iEPO at 30 mcg/mL from 2018 to 2019.

RESULTS

In the in vitro study, there were no significant differences in aerosol deposition between high vs low concentrations of iEPO at a dose of 50 ng/kg/min. In the clinical study, age, gender, ethnicity, and indications for iEPO were similar between high and low concentration groups. After 30-120 min of iEPO administration, both delivery strategies significantly improved oxygenation in hypoxemic patients and reduced mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) for patients with pulmonary hypertension. However, no significant differences of the incremental changes were found between two delivery groups. Compared to low concentration, high concentration delivery group had better adherence to the iEPO weaning protocol (96% vs 71%, p < 0.001), fewer iEPO syringes utilized per patient (5 [3, 10] vs 12 [6, 22], p = 0.001), and shorter duration of invasive ventilation (6 [3, 12] vs 9 [5, 18] days, p = 0.028). Intensive care unit length of stay and mortality were similar between two groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared to low concentration delivery of iEPO, high concentration iEPO via a vibrating mesh nebulizer maintained clinical benefits and increased clinician compliance with an iEPO weaning protocol, required less medication preparation time, and shortened duration of invasive ventilation.

Cellular Therapy for the Treatment of Paediatric Respiratory Disease

Respiratory disease is the leading cause of death in children under the age of 5 years old. Currently available treatments for paediatric respiratory diseases including bronchopulmonary dysplasia, asthma, cystic fibrosis and interstitial lung disease may ameliorate symptoms but do not offer a cure. Cellular therapy may offer a potential cure for these diseases, preventing disease progression into adulthood. Induced pluripotent stem cells, mesenchymal stromal cells and their secretome have shown great potential in preclinical models of lung disease, targeting the major pathological features of the disease. Current research and clinical trials are focused on the adult population. For cellular therapies to progress from preclinical studies to use in the clinic, optimal cell type dosage and delivery methods need to be established and confirmed. Direct delivery of these therapies to the lung as aerosols would allow for lower doses with a higher target efficiency whilst avoiding potential effect of systemic delivery. There is a clear need for research to progress into the clinic for the treatment of paediatric respiratory disease. Whilst research in the adult population forms a basis for the paediatric population, varying disease pathology and anatomical differences in paediatric patients means a paediatric-centric approach must be taken.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Pediatric Critical Asthma

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been used in the treatment of pediatric asthma, although high-quality data comparing HFNC to aerosol mask nebulizer are lacking. We hypothesized that HFNC would perform similarly to the aerosol mask for meaningful clinical outcomes in children with critical asthma.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of children with critical asthma (age 2-17 y) with a modified pulmonary index score (MPIS) ≥ 8 admitted to our pediatric ICU as part of a quality improvement project. Patients were managed with our MPIS-based, respiratory therapist-driven protocol. Subjects were divided into 2 cohorts by initial respiratory support: HFNC or aerosol mask. Data included demographics, initial respiratory support, and MPIS over time. Primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcome was difference in MPIS over time.

RESULTS

We included 171 subjects, with 104 in the HFNC group and 67 in the aerosol mask group. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was lower in the HFNC group (5 [IQR 4-9] vs 7 [IQR 5-10] y, P = .006)], while other demographic characteristics were similar. Initial MPIS was similar between HFNC and aerosol mask groups (11 [IQR 9-12] vs 10 [IQR 9-12], P = .15). There were no significant differences for hospital LOS (2.9 [IQR 2.1-3.9] vs 3.0 [IQR 2.3-4.4] d, P = .47), pediatric ICU LOS (1.9 [IQR 1.4-2.8] vs 1.8 [IQR 1.5-3.0] d, P = .92), or time to MPIS < 6 (1.0 [IQR 0.6-1.6] vs 1.3 [IQR 0.8-1.9) d, P = .09) between the HFNC and aerosol mask groups, respectively. Median time on continuous albuterol was shorter in the HFNC group compared to the aerosol mask group (1.0 [IQR 0.7-1.8] vs 1.5 [IQR 0.9-2.3] d, P = .048). Of note, 16 (24%) subjects in the aerosol mask group were eventually treated with HFNC. Use of a helium-oxygen mixture and noninvasive ventilation was similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

HFNC performed similarly to aerosol mask in pediatric patients with critical asthma.

Evaluation of Aerosol Therapy during the Escalation of Care in a Model of Adult Cystic Fibrosis

Lung disease is the main cause of morbidity and mortality in cystic fibrosis (CF). CF patients inhale antibiotics regularly as treatment against persistent bacterial infections. The goal of this study was to investigate the effect of clinical intervention on aerosol therapy during the escalation of care using a bench model of adult CF. Droplet size analysis of selected antibiotics was completed in tandem with the delivered aerosol dose (% of total dose) assessments in simulations of various interventions providing oxygen supplementation or ventilatory support. Results highlight the variability of aerosolised dose delivery. In the homecare setting, the vibrating mesh nebuliser (VMN) delivered significantly more than the jet nebuliser (JN) (16.15 ± 0.86% versus 6.51 ± 2.15%). In the hospital setting, using VMN only, significant variability was seen across clinical interventions. In the emergency department, VMN plus mouthpiece (no supplemental oxygen) was seen to deliver (29.02 ± 1.41%) versus low flow nasal therapy (10 L per minute (LPM) oxygen) (1.81 ± 0.47%) and high flow nasal therapy (50 LPM oxygen) (3.36 ± 0.34%). In the ward/intensive care unit, non-invasive ventilation recorded 19.02 ± 0.28%, versus 22.64 ± 1.88% of the dose delivered during invasive mechanical ventilation. These results will have application in the design of intervention-appropriate aerosol therapy strategies and will be of use to researchers developing new therapeutics for application in cystic fibrosis and beyond.

Narrative review of practical aspects of aerosol delivery via high-flow nasal cannula

Using high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as a "vehicle" to administer aerosolized medication has attracted clinicians' interest in recent years. In this paper, we summarize the current evidence to answer the common questions raised by clinicians about this new aerosol delivery route and best practices of administration. Benefits of trans-nasal aerosol delivery include increased comfort, ability to speak, eat, and drink for patients while meeting a range of oxygen requirements, particularly for those who need to inhale aerosolized medication for long periods. Aerosol administration via HFNC has been shown to be well tolerated by children and adults, with comparable or better delivery efficacy than other interfaces, ranging from 2-20%. In vitro and in vivo scintigraphy studies among pediatric and adult populations reported that the inhaled dose delivered via a vibrating mesh nebulizer is 2 to 3 fold greater than that via a jet nebulizer. For adults, placement of nebulizer at the inlet of humidifier increases inhaled dose while reducing rainout obstructing nasal prongs. When HFNC gas flow is set below patient inspiratory flow, aerosol deposition is higher than when the gas flow exceeds patient inspiratory flow; thus, if tolerated, titrating down HFNC gas flow during trans-nasal aerosol delivery, with close monitoring and the use of unit dose with high concentration are recommended. Trans-nasal pulmonary aerosol delivery has not been shown to increase bioaerosols generated by patients, but gas flow may disperse aerosols. Placement of a surgical or procedure mask over HFNC might reduce aerosol dispersion.