Comparison of the bronchodilative effects of salbutamol delivered via three mesh nebulizers in children with bronchial asthma

Effect of nebulizer type, delivery interface, and flow rate on aerosol drug delivery to spontaneously breathing pediatric and infant lung models

BACKGROUND

Different types of nebulizers, interfaces, and flow rates are used to deliver aerosolized medications to children. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of nebulizer type, delivery interface, and flow rate on aerosol drug delivery to spontaneously breathing pediatric and infant lung models.

METHODOLOGY

A teaching mannequin was attached to a sinusoidal pump via a collecting filter at the bronchi to simulate a spontaneously breathing child (Vt: 250 mL, RR: 20 bpm and Ti: 1 second) and infant (Vt = 100 mL, RR = 30 bpm, Ti: 0.7 seconds). Albuterol sulfate was nebulized with jet (Misty Max 10; Cardinal Health) and mesh (Aerogen Solo; Aerogen) nebulizers using a low-flow nasal cannula (LFNC; Hudson), a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC; Fisher & Paykel), face mask (FM; Hudson), and mouthpiece (MP; Cardinal Health). While all interfaces were used in the pediatric study, only LFNC, HFNC, and FM were tested in the infant study. The mesh nebulizer was tested at 2, 4, and 6 L/min with LFNC, 4 and 6 L/min with HFNC, and 6 L/min with FM and MP. The jet nebulizer was operated at 6 and 8 L/min with FM and 6 L/min with LFNC, HFNC, and MP (n = 5). The drug was eluted from the filter and analyzed by spectrophotometry. Factorial analysis of variance and post hoc comparisons were used for data analysis. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Delivery efficiency of mesh nebulizers is two to fourfold more than jet nebulizers used with HFNC, FM, and MP. No statistical difference was found between jet and mesh nebulizers used with LFNC in infants (P = .643) and pediatrics (P = .255). Aerosol delivery with MP was the best compared to other interfaces used in pediatrics (P < .05). As the second-best interface in aerosol drug delivery, the delivery efficiency of FM was greater than HFNC (P = .0001) and LFNC (P = .0001). Increasing flow rate with LFNC and HFNC decreased aerosol delivery with the mesh nebulizer in both infants and pediatrics.

CONCLUSION

The type of nebulizer, delivery interface, and flow rate used in the treatment of children affect aerosol drug delivery.

Mesh nebulizer is as effective as jet nebulizer in clinical practice of acute asthma in children

Background/aim

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of salbutamol delivered to children by jet nebulizer (JN) and mesh nebulizer (MN).

Materials and methods

Children admitted with acute asthma were treated with 3 doses of nebulized salbutamol, 1 given by MN. The patients’ vital signs, lung function measurements, modified pulmonary index score (MPIS), and whole body plethysmography (WBP) measurements were evaluated before and 20 min after each dose of salbutamol.

Results

Thirty-onechildren [9.5 (6.4–17.2) years, 67.7% male, 32.3% female] with mild (67.7%) and moderate (32.3%) asthma attacks were included in the study. The improvements with MN were comparable with JN in terms of changes in pretreatment and posttreatment forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) (2.57 ± 4.57, 3.65 ± 5.44; P = 0.44), forced vital capacity (FVC) (2.52 ± 5.29, 4.17 ± 7.54; P = 0.28), heart rate (7.33 ± 10.21, 4.14 ± 9.32; P = 0.24), peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) (0.38 ± 0.23, 0.43 ± 0.15; P = 0.83), and modified pulmonary index score (MPIS) (−6.30 ± 22.70, −8.77 ± 25.46; P = 0.70). The pre- and posttreatment values of total lung capacity (TLC), residual volume (RV), specific conductance (sGaw), and RV/TLC were similar for the JN and MN groups. Adverse effects were not different: however, complaints of palpitation were significantly higher in the posttreatment MN group than the pretreatment MN group (32.3% vs 9.7%, respectively, P = 0.016).

Conclusions

These findings support the previous evidence found in studies of adults that MN is as effective as and as safe as JN in the treatment of acute asthma in children.

Comparison of the Clinical Efficacy of Salbutamol with Jet and Mesh Nebulizers in Asthmatic Children

Background

Ultrasonic, jet, and mesh nebulizers have all been used in the treatment for asthma. Mesh nebulizers reportedly offer the best inhalation efficiency.

Methods

This study aimed to clarify the utility of the mesh nebulizer, compared to jet nebulizers, in the treatment of pediatric asthma patients. Participants included 88 children <6 years old who were receiving treatment for asthma at Murayama Pediatric Clinic. Heart rate, peripheral oxygen saturation in arterial blood, and Mitsui symptom scores were compared before and after treatment with a mesh nebulizer (n = 43) or jet nebulizer (n = 45) using a salbutamol inhalation solution (0.2 ml for children ≧ 2 years old, n = 51; 0.1 ml for children < 2 years old, n = 37).

Results

Other than required inhalation time, clinical findings did not differ between mesh and jet groups. In both groups, heart rate increased significantly in patients treated with 0.2 ml (1000 microg) of salbutamol.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance

The required inhalation time of the mesh nebulizer was superior to the jet nebulizer. Children ≧ 2 years with mild asthma attacks experienced a significantly increased heart rate in both groups. The dose of salbutamol (0.2 ml for ≧2 years) used for asthma attacks should be reconsidered in mild asthma.

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.

Performance Comparisons of Jet and Mesh Nebulizers Using Different Interfaces in Simulated Spontaneously Breathing Adults and Children

BACKGROUND

Different types of nebulizers and interfaces are used for the treatment of adults and children with pulmonary diseases. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficiency of a mesh nebulizer (MN) with a proprietary adapter and a jet nebulizer (JN) under different configurations in adult and pediatric models of spontaneous breathing. We hypothesize that delivery efficiency of JN and MN will differ depending on the interface used during aerosol therapy in simulated spontaneously breathing adult and pediatric models. While we expect that aerosol delivery with JN will be less efficient than MN, we also hypothesize that lung deposition obtained with the adult lung model will be more than that with the pediatric lung model in all conditions tested in this study.

METHODS

A lung model using a teaching manikin connected to a sinusoidal pump via a collecting filter at the level of the bronchi simulating a spontaneously breathing adult (Vt 500 mL, RR 15 bpm, I:E ratio 1:2) or pediatric patient (Vt 150 mL, RR 25 bpm, I:E ratio 1:2). Albuterol sulfate (2.5 mg/3 mL) was aerosolized with JN (Mistymax 10, Airlife) or MN (Aerogen Solo(®), Aerogen) with the Adapter (Aerogen Solo(®) Adapter, Aerogen Ltd, Galway, Ireland) using mouthpiece, aerosol mask, and valved-mask in adults and the dragon mask, aerosol mask, and valved-mask in pediatrics (n=3). The Adapter, specifically designed for MN, was attached to all the interfaces used in this study with supplemental oxygen of 2 lpm, and in addition, the MP was tested with no additional flow in the adult model. The JN was driven with 10 lpm based on the manufacturer's label. Drug was eluted from the filter and analyzed via spectrophotometry. Descriptive statistics, dependent t-test and one-way analysis of variance were used for data analysis. Significant level was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

In adults, delivery efficiency of JN with the valved mask was significantly greater than that with the aerosol mask (p=0.01). Aerosol delivery of JN with the mouthpiece was not statistically significant from the valved mask (p=0.123) and the aerosol mask (p=0.193). Drug delivery with MN with mouthpiece (15.42±1.4%) and valved-mask (15.15±1.1%) was greater than the open aerosol mask (7.54±0.39%; p=0.0001) in the adult lung model. With no flow mouthpiece delivery increased>2 fold (34.9±3.1%; p=.0001) compared to use of 2 lpm of flow. Using the JN with the pediatric model deposition with valved-mask (5.3±0.8%), dragon mask (4.7±0.9%), and aerosol mask (4.1±0.3%) were similar (p>0.05); while drug delivery with MN via valved-mask (11.1±0.7%) was greater than the dragon mask (6.44±0.3%; p=0.002) and aerosol mask (4.6±0.4%; p=0.002), and the dragon mask was more efficient than the open aerosol mask (p=0.009) CONCLUSION: The type of nebulizer and interface used for aerosol therapy affects delivery efficiency in these simulated spontaneously breathing adult and pediatric models. Drug delivery was greatest with the valved-mouthpiece and mask with JN and MN, while the standard aerosol mask was least efficient in these simulated spontaneously breathing adult and pediatric lung models. Delivery efficiency of JN was less than MN in all conditions tested in this study except in the aerosol mask. Lung deposition obtained with the adult lung model was more than that with the pediatric lung model.