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.

Clinical outcome associated with the use of different inhalation method with and without humidification in asthmatic mechanically ventilated patients.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled-medication delivered during mechanical-ventilation is affected by type of aerosol-generator and humidity-condition. Despite many in-vitro studies related to aerosol-delivery to mechanically-ventilated patients, little has been reported on clinical effects of these variables. The aim of this study was to determine effect of humidification and type of aerosol-generator on clinical status of mechanically ventilated asthmatics. METHOD: 72 (36 females) asthmatic subjects receiving invasive mechanical ventilation were enrolled and assigned randomly to 6 treatment groups of 12 (6 females) subjects each received, as possible, all inhaled medication using their assigned aerosol generator and humidity condition during delivery. Aerosol-generators were placed immediately after humidifier within inspiratory limb of mechanical ventilation circuit. First group used vibrating-mesh-nebulizer (Aerogen Solo; VMN) with humidification; Second used VMN without humidification; Third used metered-dose-inhaler with AeroChamber Vent (MDI-AV) with humidification; Forth used MDI-AV without humidification; Fifth used Oxycare jet-nebulizer (JN) with humidification; Sixth used JN without humidification. Measured parameters included clinical-parameters reflected patient response (CP) and endpoint parameters e.g. length-of-stay in the intensive-care-unit (ICU-days) and mechanical-ventilation days (MV-days). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between studied subjects in the 6 groups in baseline of CP. VMN resulted in trend to shorter ICU-days (∼1.42days) compared to MDI-AV (p = 0.39) and relatively but not significantly shorter ICU-days (∼0.75days) compared JN. Aerosol-delivery with or without humidification did not have any significant effect on any of parameters studied with very light insignificant tendency of delivery at humid condition to decrease MV-days and ICU-days. No significant effect was found of changing humidity during aerosol-delivery to ventilated-patient. CONCLUSIONS: VMN to deliver aerosol in ventilated patient resulted in trend to decreased ICU-days compared to JN and MDI-AV. Aerosol-delivery with or without humidification did not have any significant effect on any of parameters studied. However, we recommend increasing the number of patients studied to corroborate this finding.

In vitro aerodynamic characteristics of aerosol delivered from different inhalation methods in mechanical ventilation.

Aerodynamic characteristics of aerosol delivery during invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are mostly determined by inserting cascade impactor in the circuit. Impactor might have some effect on airflow within IMV. Hence, the aim of the present study was to develop and evaluate new in vitro aerodynamic characterization methodology without affecting airflow in IMV. Breathing simulator was set in standard adult IMV circuit with inspiratory and expiratory pressures of 20 and 5 cm H2O, 1:3 inspiratory-expiratory ratio, 15 breaths min-1, and tidal volume of 500 ml. Two ml of salbutamol solution containing 10,000 µg was nebulized using three different vibrating mesh nebulizers (VMNs) and Sidestream jet nebulizer (JET). Sixteen-metered doses, containing 100 µg salbutamol each, were delivered using three different spacers. Each device was placed in inspiration limb of Y-piece of ventilator tubing. Aerodynamic characteristics of aerosol delivered were measured using cooled Andersen cascade impactor, with mixing inlet connected to it. VMNs used had significantly more total mass in the impactor (p < .001) and fine particle dose (p < .001) compared to JET. Spacers used had higher total mass in the impactor percent (p < .001) and fine particle fraction compared to nebulizers. The in vitro IMV methodology setting suggested here showed encouraging results in comparison of different aerosol delivery systems in intubated patient.