Aerosol Delivery Using Jet Nebulizer and Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer During High Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation: An In Vitro Comparison
High frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is used in critically ill patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the efficiency of aerosol delivery with different lung parameters during simulated neonatal, pediatric, and adult HFOV. Sens...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of aerosol medicine 2016-10, Vol.29 (5), p.447-453 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 453 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 447 |
| container_title | Journal of aerosol medicine |
| container_volume | 29 |
| creator | Fang, Tien-Pei Lin, Hui-Ling Chiu, Shu-Hua Wang, Szu-Hui DiBlasi, Robert M Tsai, Ying-Huang Fink, James B |
| description | High frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is used in critically ill patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the efficiency of aerosol delivery with different lung parameters during simulated neonatal, pediatric, and adult HFOV.
Sensormedics 3100A/B ventilators were used to deliver infant, pediatric, and adult HFOV. Two types of aerosol generators were chosen for testing: 1) a continuous jet nebulizer (JN) with a unit-dose of 5.0 mg/2.5 mL salbutamol sulfate diluted into 4 mL, and 2) a vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN) with salbutamol sulfate were run to completion of aerosol generation. Both aerosol devices were placed 1) between the ventilator circuit and the endotracheal tube (ETT) (proximal position); and 2) at the inlet of the heated humidifier (distal position) (n = 5). Drug was collected on a bacterial filter placed distal to the ETT, and the drug eluted and analyzed with a UV Spectrophotometer at 276 nm. T- test and ANOVA tests were used for comparison (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1089/jamp.2015.1265 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1846414073</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1826659976</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-780a147e8d3a5df06da9a13006f80b51b0ac7b8a392b8b407f5f15456c7e66323</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU1P3DAQhq2qqHy01x4rS730sosn_kp6Wy0FFgF7KVwjJ5mAV4m9tZNK2z_A38YRH0I9cZrRzDOvZuYl5CuwObC8ON6YfjvPGMg5ZEp-IAdQCJhlmvGPrznAPjmMccOYAqH4J7KfqUIL0PKAPCww-Og7eoKd_YthR2-idXf0Agd6jdXY2X8YqHENvbVVMMPUu8J4_6Z5Moapem7v7ulpwD8junpH17G2XWcGnyRv0Q025da7n3Th6MoltSF4uvT91gQbvftM9lrTRfzyHI_Izemv38vz2eX6bLVcXM5qLtUw0zkzIDTmDTeyaZlqTGGAp8vanFUSKmZqXeWGF1mVV4LpVrYghVS1RqV4xo_IjyfdbfBp0ziUvY01pk0d-jGWkAslIA3yd6CZUrIotEro9__QjR-DS4dMlFBFxpVM1PyJqtPLY8C23Abbm7ArgZWTm-XkZjm5WU5upoFvz7Jj1WPzir_Yxx8BmbCbHQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1824692365</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Aerosol Delivery Using Jet Nebulizer and Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer During High Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation: An In Vitro Comparison</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Fang, Tien-Pei ; Lin, Hui-Ling ; Chiu, Shu-Hua ; Wang, Szu-Hui ; DiBlasi, Robert M ; Tsai, Ying-Huang ; Fink, James B</creator><creatorcontrib>Fang, Tien-Pei ; Lin, Hui-Ling ; Chiu, Shu-Hua ; Wang, Szu-Hui ; DiBlasi, Robert M ; Tsai, Ying-Huang ; Fink, James B</creatorcontrib><description>High frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is used in critically ill patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the efficiency of aerosol delivery with different lung parameters during simulated neonatal, pediatric, and adult HFOV.
Sensormedics 3100A/B ventilators were used to deliver infant, pediatric, and adult HFOV. Two types of aerosol generators were chosen for testing: 1) a continuous jet nebulizer (JN) with a unit-dose of 5.0 mg/2.5 mL salbutamol sulfate diluted into 4 mL, and 2) a vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN) with salbutamol sulfate were run to completion of aerosol generation. Both aerosol devices were placed 1) between the ventilator circuit and the endotracheal tube (ETT) (proximal position); and 2) at the inlet of the heated humidifier (distal position) (n = 5). Drug was collected on a bacterial filter placed distal to the ETT, and the drug eluted and analyzed with a UV Spectrophotometer at 276 nm. T- test and ANOVA tests were used for comparison (p < 0.05).
The inhaled drug delivered by JN was 0%-0.6% of the nominal dose when placed at distal position, and 0%-3% at proximal position (p < 0.01), while the VMN was 0%-0.5% at distal and 8.6%-22.7% at proximal position (p < 0.01). Aerosol delivery during HFOV was greater with adult settings than pediatric and infant settings with VMN and JN (22.7%, 8.6%, and 17.4% respectively, p < 0.01). When the aerosol delivery device was placed at the distal position, negligible drug mass was observed (<0.5%), regardless of the nebulizer device used.
During HFOV, aerosol delivery with the nebulizer placed at proximal was greater than placement distal from the ETT, with VMN delivering more drug than JN. The inhaled drug was delivery correlated positively with ETT size, MAP, and bias flow, and inversely proportional to power settings.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1941-2711</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1941-2703</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1089/jamp.2015.1265</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26974175</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc</publisher><ispartof>Journal of aerosol medicine, 2016-10, Vol.29 (5), p.447-453</ispartof><rights>(©) Copyright 2016, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-780a147e8d3a5df06da9a13006f80b51b0ac7b8a392b8b407f5f15456c7e66323</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-780a147e8d3a5df06da9a13006f80b51b0ac7b8a392b8b407f5f15456c7e66323</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26974175$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fang, Tien-Pei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Hui-Ling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chiu, Shu-Hua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Szu-Hui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DiBlasi, Robert M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsai, Ying-Huang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fink, James B</creatorcontrib><title>Aerosol Delivery Using Jet Nebulizer and Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer During High Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation: An In Vitro Comparison</title><title>Journal of aerosol medicine</title><addtitle>J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv</addtitle><description>High frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is used in critically ill patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the efficiency of aerosol delivery with different lung parameters during simulated neonatal, pediatric, and adult HFOV.
Sensormedics 3100A/B ventilators were used to deliver infant, pediatric, and adult HFOV. Two types of aerosol generators were chosen for testing: 1) a continuous jet nebulizer (JN) with a unit-dose of 5.0 mg/2.5 mL salbutamol sulfate diluted into 4 mL, and 2) a vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN) with salbutamol sulfate were run to completion of aerosol generation. Both aerosol devices were placed 1) between the ventilator circuit and the endotracheal tube (ETT) (proximal position); and 2) at the inlet of the heated humidifier (distal position) (n = 5). Drug was collected on a bacterial filter placed distal to the ETT, and the drug eluted and analyzed with a UV Spectrophotometer at 276 nm. T- test and ANOVA tests were used for comparison (p < 0.05).
The inhaled drug delivered by JN was 0%-0.6% of the nominal dose when placed at distal position, and 0%-3% at proximal position (p < 0.01), while the VMN was 0%-0.5% at distal and 8.6%-22.7% at proximal position (p < 0.01). Aerosol delivery during HFOV was greater with adult settings than pediatric and infant settings with VMN and JN (22.7%, 8.6%, and 17.4% respectively, p < 0.01). When the aerosol delivery device was placed at the distal position, negligible drug mass was observed (<0.5%), regardless of the nebulizer device used.
During HFOV, aerosol delivery with the nebulizer placed at proximal was greater than placement distal from the ETT, with VMN delivering more drug than JN. The inhaled drug was delivery correlated positively with ETT size, MAP, and bias flow, and inversely proportional to power settings.</description><issn>1941-2711</issn><issn>1941-2703</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU1P3DAQhq2qqHy01x4rS730sosn_kp6Wy0FFgF7KVwjJ5mAV4m9tZNK2z_A38YRH0I9cZrRzDOvZuYl5CuwObC8ON6YfjvPGMg5ZEp-IAdQCJhlmvGPrznAPjmMccOYAqH4J7KfqUIL0PKAPCww-Og7eoKd_YthR2-idXf0Agd6jdXY2X8YqHENvbVVMMPUu8J4_6Z5Moapem7v7ulpwD8junpH17G2XWcGnyRv0Q025da7n3Th6MoltSF4uvT91gQbvftM9lrTRfzyHI_Izemv38vz2eX6bLVcXM5qLtUw0zkzIDTmDTeyaZlqTGGAp8vanFUSKmZqXeWGF1mVV4LpVrYghVS1RqV4xo_IjyfdbfBp0ziUvY01pk0d-jGWkAslIA3yd6CZUrIotEro9__QjR-DS4dMlFBFxpVM1PyJqtPLY8C23Abbm7ArgZWTm-XkZjm5WU5upoFvz7Jj1WPzir_Yxx8BmbCbHQ</recordid><startdate>201610</startdate><enddate>201610</enddate><creator>Fang, Tien-Pei</creator><creator>Lin, Hui-Ling</creator><creator>Chiu, Shu-Hua</creator><creator>Wang, Szu-Hui</creator><creator>DiBlasi, Robert M</creator><creator>Tsai, Ying-Huang</creator><creator>Fink, James B</creator><general>Mary Ann Liebert, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201610</creationdate><title>Aerosol Delivery Using Jet Nebulizer and Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer During High Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation: An In Vitro Comparison</title><author>Fang, Tien-Pei ; Lin, Hui-Ling ; Chiu, Shu-Hua ; Wang, Szu-Hui ; DiBlasi, Robert M ; Tsai, Ying-Huang ; Fink, James B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-780a147e8d3a5df06da9a13006f80b51b0ac7b8a392b8b407f5f15456c7e66323</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fang, Tien-Pei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Hui-Ling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chiu, Shu-Hua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Szu-Hui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DiBlasi, Robert M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsai, Ying-Huang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fink, James B</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Proquest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of aerosol medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fang, Tien-Pei</au><au>Lin, Hui-Ling</au><au>Chiu, Shu-Hua</au><au>Wang, Szu-Hui</au><au>DiBlasi, Robert M</au><au>Tsai, Ying-Huang</au><au>Fink, James B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Aerosol Delivery Using Jet Nebulizer and Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer During High Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation: An In Vitro Comparison</atitle><jtitle>Journal of aerosol medicine</jtitle><addtitle>J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv</addtitle><date>2016-10</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>447</spage><epage>453</epage><pages>447-453</pages><issn>1941-2711</issn><eissn>1941-2703</eissn><abstract>High frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is used in critically ill patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the efficiency of aerosol delivery with different lung parameters during simulated neonatal, pediatric, and adult HFOV.
Sensormedics 3100A/B ventilators were used to deliver infant, pediatric, and adult HFOV. Two types of aerosol generators were chosen for testing: 1) a continuous jet nebulizer (JN) with a unit-dose of 5.0 mg/2.5 mL salbutamol sulfate diluted into 4 mL, and 2) a vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN) with salbutamol sulfate were run to completion of aerosol generation. Both aerosol devices were placed 1) between the ventilator circuit and the endotracheal tube (ETT) (proximal position); and 2) at the inlet of the heated humidifier (distal position) (n = 5). Drug was collected on a bacterial filter placed distal to the ETT, and the drug eluted and analyzed with a UV Spectrophotometer at 276 nm. T- test and ANOVA tests were used for comparison (p < 0.05).
The inhaled drug delivered by JN was 0%-0.6% of the nominal dose when placed at distal position, and 0%-3% at proximal position (p < 0.01), while the VMN was 0%-0.5% at distal and 8.6%-22.7% at proximal position (p < 0.01). Aerosol delivery during HFOV was greater with adult settings than pediatric and infant settings with VMN and JN (22.7%, 8.6%, and 17.4% respectively, p < 0.01). When the aerosol delivery device was placed at the distal position, negligible drug mass was observed (<0.5%), regardless of the nebulizer device used.
During HFOV, aerosol delivery with the nebulizer placed at proximal was greater than placement distal from the ETT, with VMN delivering more drug than JN. The inhaled drug was delivery correlated positively with ETT size, MAP, and bias flow, and inversely proportional to power settings.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Mary Ann Liebert, Inc</pub><pmid>26974175</pmid><doi>10.1089/jamp.2015.1265</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1941-2711 |
| ispartof | Journal of aerosol medicine, 2016-10, Vol.29 (5), p.447-453 |
| issn | 1941-2711 1941-2703 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1846414073 |
| source | Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| title | Aerosol Delivery Using Jet Nebulizer and Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer During High Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation: An In Vitro Comparison |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T18%3A07%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Aerosol%20Delivery%20Using%20Jet%20Nebulizer%20and%20Vibrating%20Mesh%20Nebulizer%20During%20High%20Frequency%20Oscillatory%20Ventilation:%20An%20In%20Vitro%20Comparison&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20aerosol%20medicine&rft.au=Fang,%20Tien-Pei&rft.date=2016-10&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=447&rft.epage=453&rft.pages=447-453&rft.issn=1941-2711&rft.eissn=1941-2703&rft_id=info:doi/10.1089/jamp.2015.1265&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1826659976%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1824692365&rft_id=info:pmid/26974175&rfr_iscdi=true |