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.

Aerosol delivery of inhalation devices with different add-on connections to invasively ventilated COPD subjects: An in-vivo study

Aerosol delivery to mechanically ventilated patients requires add-on connections to place the inhalation device within the ventilation circuit. The study aimed to evaluate the performance of Combihaler in dual limb invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). A ventilator with a humidified dual limb circuit was adjusted to volume-controlled mode to imitate the adult breathing parameters. 24 (12 females) intubated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) subjects had undergone the study. All patients were prescribed inhaled salbutamol dose delivered by either a metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) or vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN). Each subject received salbutamol in four different inhalation device/connection conditions; pMDI+VMN+Combihaler, VMN+Combihaler, VMN+T-piece, and pMDI+T-piece. They were individually placed in the inspiratory limb at Y-piece. 5mg salbutamol was delivered by VMN with and without 2 pMDI puffs of salbutamol (100 µg), and 500µg was delivered by pMDI+T-piece. After aerosol delivery, two urine samples were collected from the patient; 30 min post-inhalation (USAL0.5) and cumulatively 24 h post-inhalation (USAL24) as indexes of lung deposition and systemic absorption, respectively. For the ex-vivo study, a collecting filter was placed before an endotracheal tube (ETT) to collect the delivered inhalable dose. In-vitro aerodynamic characteristics were also investigated. pMDI+VMN+Combihaler delivered more salbutamol to the lung and the ex-vivo filter than VMN+T-piece (p˂0.05, p≤0.01, respectively). VMN delivered a higher salbutamol amount to the lung, systemically, and the ex-vivo filter than pMDI+T-piece (p˂0.001). pMDI+VMN+Combihaler and VMN+Combihaler delivered aerosols with a less mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) and higher fine particle fraction (FPF) compared to VMN+T-piece (p≤0.01 for MMAD, p˂0.01 for FPF) and pMDI+T-piece (p˂0.01 for both MMAD and FPF). Results of the study showed that pMDI+VMN+ Combihaler delivered more salbutamol than VMN+T-piece in IMV and demonstrate that 5 puffs (500-µg) of salbutamol with pMDI+T-piece has a lower aerosol delivering power at the level of USAL0.5, USAL24, and the ex-vivo inhalable dose than 5 mg nebulized salbutamol by VMNs in IMV.

The impact of changing patient interfaces on delivering aerosol with titrated oxygen in the high flow system

INTRODUCTION

Despite the widespread oxygen-culture as more is better in prehospital and hospital settings, the use of titrated oxygen-flow within a high-flow system can be beneficial especially when combined with aerosol-delivery and also save the patient from unnecessary-hyperoxia.

METHODS

Forty-five COPD patients were included in this study where they allocated in three-groups (nasal-delivery, oral-delivery, and oronasal-delivery groups). All patients were received their inhaled-salbutamol dose using Aerogen Solo nebuliser by one of the three interfaces, eg, nasal-cannula, mouthpiece, and facemask in two conditions; with oxygen-flow and without any oxygen-flow. Pulmonary and systemic salbutamol deposition was estimated by collecting two urine-samples from the patient; 30 min post-inhalation and cumulatively 24 hr post-inhalation. The quantity of salbutamol in these collected samples was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. Lung function measurement was performed pre-bronchodilator inhalation and 30 min post-bronchodilator to estimate the change in pulmonary functions post-inhalation regarding all tested interfaces.

RESULTS

COPD patients showed the highest salbutamol percentage excreted 30 min post-inhalation of 5.7% (1.4) with mouthpiece interface when combined with oxygen at P < .002. While with the same condition using oxygen, valved-facemask showed the highest salbutamol percentage excreted in 24 hr post inhalation samples but the difference is only significantly compared with nasal cannula (P < .006). Moreover, without oxygen delivery, mouthpiece and valved facemask showed approximately the same salbutamol percentage excreted in 30 min post-inhalation samples, higher than that delivered by nasal cannula (P < .001). Of note, salbutamol delivery is significantly increased with oxygen flow for all interfaces (P < .05) except with nasal cannula.

CONCLUSIONS

The nasal cannula is a more comfortable and tolerable interface despite the lower fraction of the delivered drug compared with other tested interfaces. The use of oxygen-flow with aerosol delivery within a high flow system positively affects the delivered drug fraction and the pulmonary deposition of the drug.

Aerosol Delivery to a Critically Ill Patient: A Big Issue Easily Solved by Developing Guidelines

Nowadays, therapeutic aerosols are commonly delivered to mechanically ventilated patients by nebulizers and pressurized metered dose inhaler attached to an adapter or a spacer. Studies with asthmatics and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients have confirmed that aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation is feasible. They have also reported that the inhaled drugs administered during mechanical ventilation provide greater and faster clinical outcomes than when delivering during spontaneous unassisted breathing. Researchers studied factors that would affect aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation. Even with the tremendous amount of publications in this area, there have still been no recommendations or guidelines released to help respiratory therapists in their decision as to when to deliver aerosol to ventilated patients. Mostly, respiratory therapists read the literature and decide accordingly what to do and which device to use for their patients. This puts the patients at risk of receiving a sub-therapeutic or toxic dose of the inhaled aerosol. Some studies raise an alarm of physician decision upon reading any released publication related to aerosol delivery in mechanical ventilation without a trusted recommendation and guidelines. This increases the need for the development of recommendations and guidelines, by a trusted board or society, for aerosol delivery to such critically ill patients. To summarize, inhaled drugs administered to critically ill patients is of benefit compared to taking the patient off the ventilator and delivering during spontaneous unassisted breathing. However, dependable guidelines are needed to optimize aerosol delivery.

Modeling and optimization of nebulizers' performance in non-invasive ventilation using different fill volumes: Comparative study between vibrating mesh and jet nebulizers

BACKGROUNDS

Substituting nebulisers by another, especially in non-invasive ventilation (NIV), involves many process-variables, e.g. nebulizer-type and fill-volume of respirable-dose, which might affect patient optimum-therapy. The aim of the present work was to use neural-networks and genetic-algorithms to develop performance-models for two different nebulizers.

METHODS

In-vitro, ex-vivo and in-vivo models were developed using input-variables including nebulizer-type [jet nebulizer (JN) and vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN)] fill-volumes of respirable dose placed in the nebulization chamber with an output-variable e.g. average amount reaching NIV patient. Produced models were tested and validated to ensure effective predictivity and validity in further optimization of nebulization process.

RESULTS

Data-mining produced models showed excellent training, testing and validation correlation-coefficients. VMN showed high nebulization efficacy than JN. JN was affected more by increasing the fill-volume. The optimization process and contour-lines obtained for in-vivo model showed increase in pulmonary-bioavailability and systemic-absorption with VMN and 2 mL fill-volumes.

CONCLUSIONS

Modeling of aerosol-delivery by JN and VMN using different fill-volumes in NIV circuit was successful in demonstrating the effect of different variable on dose-delivery to NIV patient. Artificial neural networks model showed that VMN increased pulmonary-bioavailability and systemic-absorption compared to JN. VMN was less affected by fill-volume change compared to JN which should be diluted to increase delivery.

Lung deposition and systemic bioavailability of different aerosol devices with and without humidification in mechanically ventilated patients

BACKGROUND

During mechanical ventilation medical aerosol delivery has been reported to be upto two fold greater with dry inhaled gas than with heated humidity. Urine levels at 0.5 h post dose (URSAL0.5%) has been confirmed as an index of lung deposition and 24 h (URSAL24%) as index of systemic absorption. Our aim was to determine the effect of humidification and aerosol device type on drug delivery to ventilated patients using urine levels.

METHODS

In a randomized crossover design, 36 (18female) mechanically ventilated patients were assigned to one of three groups. Groups 1 and 2 received 5000 μg salbutamol using vibrating mesh (VM) and jet nebulizers (JN), respectively, while group 3 received 1600 μg (16 puffs) of salbutamol via metered dose inhaler with AeroChamber Vent (MDI-AV). All devices were placed in the inspiratory limb of ventilator downstream from the humidifier. Each subject received aerosol with and without humidity at >24 h intervals with >12 h washout periods between salbutamol doses. Patients voided urine 15 min before each study dose and urine samples were collected at 0.5 h post dosing and pooled for the next 24 h.

RESULTS

The MDI-AV and VM resulted in a higher percentage of urinary salbutamol levels compared to the JN (p < 0.05). Urine levels were similar between humidity and dry conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that in-vitro reports overestimate the impact of dry vs. heated humidified conditions on the delivery of aerosol during invasive mechanical ventilation.

Inhaled salbutamol dose delivered by jet nebulizer, vibrating mesh nebulizer and metered dose inhaler with spacer during invasive mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

Patient receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) may benefit from medical aerosol, but guidance on dosing with different aerosol devices is limited to in-vitro studies. The study was designed to compare aerosol delivery with five different types of aerosol generators during IMV.

METHOD

In randomized design, 60 (30 female) mechanically ventilated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients were assigned to one of 5 groups. Groups 1-4 received 5000 μg salbutamol using Aerogen Pro (PRO), Aerogen Solo (SOLO), NIVO vibrating mesh and jet nebulizers (JN), respectively, while group 5 received 800 μg (8 puffs) of salbutamol via metered dose inhaler with AeroChamber-MV (MDI-AC). All devices were place in the inspiratory limb of ventilator downstream from humidifier which was switched off while delivery. Patients received the inhaled dose on day 1 and provided urine 30 post dosing. They also recived the same inhaled dose with a filter before the endotracheal tube on day 2. Amount of salbutamol excreted in urine 30 min post inhalation and the amount deposited on the filter from all the COPD patients were determined as indeces of pulmonary deposition and systemic absorption, respectively.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between the 3 vibrating mesh nebulizers (VMNs). The in-vivo and ex-vivo testing showed that all the VMNs resulted in better aerosol delivery compared to JN (p < 0.01). However, MDI-AC resulted in better aerosol delivery to VMNs but must be accompanied with careful attention and proper delivery of MDI-AC doses by healthcare provider.

CONCLUSIONS

VMNs can be exchanged with each other, with no dose adjustment. However, dose adjustment is a must when replacing VMNs by JN or MDI-AC. This similarity and difference between the 5 aerosol delivery methods suggest that for IMV patients, aerosol delivery methods should be chosen or substituted with care.