Jean-Bernard Michotte

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.

Influence of inspiratory flow pattern and nebulizer position on aerosol delivery with a vibrating-mesh nebulizer during invasive mechanical ventilation: an in vitro analysis.

BACKGROUND Aerosol delivery during invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) depends on nebulizer type, placement of the nebulizer and ventilator settings. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of two inspiratory flow patterns on amikacin delivery with a vibrating-mesh nebulizer placed at different positions on an adult lung model of IMV equipped with a proximal flow sensor (PFS). METHODS IMV was simulated using a ventilator connected to a lung model through an 8-mm inner-diameter endotracheal tube. The impact of a decelerating and a constant flow pattern on aerosol delivery was evaluated in volume-controlled mode (tidal volume 500 mL, 20 breaths/min, inspiratory time of 1 sec, bias flow of 10 L/min). An amikacin solution (250 mg/3 mL) was nebulized with Aeroneb Solo(®) placed at five positions on the ventilator circuit equipped with a PFS: connected to the endotracheal tube (A), to the Y-piece (B), placed at 15 cm (C) and 45 cm upstream of the Y-piece (D), and placed at 15 cm of the inspiratory outlet of the ventilator (E). The four last positions were also tested without PFS. Deposited doses of amikacin were measured using the gravimetric residual method. RESULTS Amikacin delivery was significantly reduced with a decelerating inspiratory flow pattern compared to a constant flow (p<0.05). With a constant inspiratory flow pattern, connecting the nebulizer to the endotracheal tube enabled similar deposited doses than these obtained when connecting the nebulizer close to the ventilator. The PFS reduced deposited doses only when the nebulizer was connected to the Y-piece with both flow patterns or placed at 15 cm of the Y-piece with a constant inspiratory flow (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS Using similar tidal volume and inspiratory time, a constant flow pattern (30 L/min) delivers a higher amount of amikacin through an endotracheal tube compared to a decelerating inspiratory flow pattern (peak inspiratory flow around 60 L/min). The optimal nebulizer position depends on the inspiratory flow pattern and the presence of a PFS.

Pulmonary Drug Delivery Following Continuous Vibrating Mesh Nebulization and Inspiratory Synchronized Vibrating Mesh Nebulization During Noninvasive Ventilation in Healthy Volunteers

BACKGROUND A breath-synchronized nebulization option that could potentially improve drug delivery during noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is currently not available on single-limb circuit bilevel ventilators. The aim of this study was to compare urinary excretion of amikacin following aerosol delivery with a vibrating mesh nebulizer coupled to a single-limb circuit bilevel ventilator, using conventional continuous (Conti-Neb) and experimental inspiratory synchronized (Inspi-Neb) nebulization modes. MATERIALS AND METHODS A crossover clinical trial involving 6 noninvasive ventilated healthy volunteers (mean age of 32.3 ± 9.5 y) randomly assigned to both vibrating mesh nebulization modes was conducted: Inspi-Neb delivered aerosol during only the whole inspiratory phase, whereas Conti-Neb delivered aerosol continuously. All subjects inhaled amikacin solution (500 mg/4 mL) during NIPPV using a single-limb bilevel ventilator (inspiratory positive airway pressure: 12 cm H2O, and expiratory positive airway pressure: 5 cm H2O). Pulmonary drug delivery of amikacin following both nebulization modes was compared by urinary excretion of drug for 24 hours post-inhalation. RESULTS The total daily amount of amikacin excreted in the urine was significantly higher with Inspi-Neb (median: 44.72 mg; interquartile range [IQR]: 40.50-65.13) than with Conti-Neb (median: 40.07 mg; IQR: 31.00-43.73), (p = 0.02). The elimination rate constant of amikacin (indirect measure of the depth of drug penetration into the lungs) was significantly higher with Inspi-Neb (median: 0.137; IQR: 0.113-0.146) than with Conti-Neb (median: 0.116; IQR: 0.105-0.130), (p = 0.02). However, the mean pulmonary drug delivery rate, expressed as the ratio between total daily urinary amount of amikacin and nebulization time, was significantly higher with Conti-Neb (2.03 mg/min) than with Inspi-Neb (1.09 mg/min) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS During NIPPV with a single-limb circuit bilevel ventilator, the use of inspiratory synchronized vibrating mesh nebulization may improve pulmonary drug delivery compared with conventional continuous vibrating mesh nebulization.

Lung Deposition of a Radiolabeled Aerosol With Two Ventilation Modalities During Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: A Randomized Comparative Study

Volume-controlled ventilation has been suggested during nebulization to optimize lung deposition although promoting spontaneous ventilation is targeted for ventilated patient management. Comparing topographic lung aerosol deposition during volume-controlled and spontaneous ventilation in pressure support has never been performed.

Kinésithérapie post-opératoire en chirurgie abdominale

Centree sur les consequences pulmonaires apres une chirurgie abdominale, cette etude s’applique a decrire les diffrerentes techniques de kinesitherapie respiratoire en vue d’une recuperation des volumes pulmonaires inspiratoires et leur efficacite.