Effect of Aerosol Devices and Administration Techniques on Drug Delivery in a Simulated Spontaneously Breathing Pediatric Tracheostomy Model

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

This study was conducted to compare the efficiency of jet nebulizers, vibrating mesh nebulizers, and pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDI) during assisted and unassisted administration techniques using a simulated spontaneously breathing pediatric model with a tracheostomy tube (TT).

METHODS:

An in vitro breathing model consisting of an uncuffed TT (4.5-mm inner diameter) was attached to a collecting filter (Respirgard) connected to a dual-chamber test lung and a ventilator (Hamilton Medical) to simulate breathing parameters of a 2-y-old child (breathing frequency, 25 breaths/min; tidal volume, 150 mL; inspiratory time, 0.8 s; peak inspiratory flow, 20 L/min). Albuterol sulfate was administered using a jet nebulizer (MicroMist, 2.5 mg/3 mL), vibrating mesh nebulizer (Aeroneb Solo, 2.5 mg/3 mL), and pMDI (ProAir HFA, 432 μg). Each device was tested 5 times with an unassisted technique (direct administration of aerosols with simulated spontaneous breathing) and with an assisted technique (using a manual resuscitation bag in conjunction with an aerosol device and synchronized with inspiration). Drug collected on the filter was analyzed by spectrophotometry.

RESULTS:

With the unassisted technique, the pMDI had the highest inhaled mass percent (IM%, 47.15 ± 7.82%), followed by the vibrating mesh nebulizer (19.77 ± 2.99%) and the jet nebulizer (5.88 ± 0.77%, P = .002). IM was greater with the vibrating mesh nebulizer (0.49 ± .07 mg) than with the pMDI (0.20 ± 0.03 mg) and the jet nebulizer (0.15 ± 0.01 mg, P = .007). The trend of lower deposition with the assisted versus unassisted technique was not significant for the jet nebulizer (P = .46), vibrating mesh nebulizer (P = .19), and pMDI (P = .64).

CONCLUSIONS:

In this in vitro pediatric breathing model with a TT, the pMDI delivered the highest IM%, whereas the vibrating mesh nebulizer delivered the highest IM. The jet nebulizer was the least efficient device. Delivery efficiency was similar with unassisted and assisted administration techniques.

Keywords

aerosols drug delivery nebulizers metered dose inhaler albuterol pediatrics tracheostomy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Dhand

. Special problems in aerosol delivery: artificial airways. Respir Care, 2000; 45(6):636–645.

Dhand

. Basic techniques for aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation. Respir Care, 2004; 49(6):611–622.

Duarte

, Fink

, Dhand

. Inhalation therapy during mechanical ventilation. Respir Care Clin N Am, 2001; 7(2):233–260, vi.

MacIntyre

. Aerosol delivery through an artificial airway. Respir Care, 2002; 47(11):1279–1288; discussion 1285-1289.

Piccuito

, Hess

. Albuterol delivery via tracheostomy tube. Respir Care, 2005; 50(8):1071–1076.

Pitance

, Vecellio

, Delval

, Reychler

, Liistro

. Aerosol delivery through tracheostomy tubes: an in vitro study. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv, 2013; 26(2):76–83.

Berlinski

, Chavez

. Albuterol delivery via a metered dose inhaler in a spontaneously breathing pediatric tracheostomy model. Pediatr Pulmonol, 2013; 48(10):1026–1034.

Berlinski

. Nebulized albuterol delivery in a model of spontaneously breathing children with tracheostomy. Respir Care, 2013; 58(12):2076–2086.

Schüepp

, Straub

, Möller

, Wildhaber

. Deposition of aerosols in infants and children. J Aerosol Med, 2004; 17(2):153–156.

10.

Ari

, Fink

. Guidelines for aerosol devices in infants, children and adults: which to choose, why and how to achieve effective aerosol therapy. Expert Rev Respir Med, 2011; 5(4):561–572.

11.

Ari

, Harwood

, Sheard

, Fink

. An in vitro evaluation of aerosol delivery through tracheostomy and endotracheal tubes using different interfaces. Respir Care, 2012; 57(7):1066–1070.

12.

Ari

, Restrepo

. Aerosol delivery device selection for spontaneously breathing patients: 2012. Respir Care, 2012; 57(4):613–626.

13.

Willis

, Berlinski

. Survey of aerosol delivery techniques to spontaneously breathing tracheostomized children. Respir Care, 2012; 57(8):1234–1241.

14.

Wyatt

, Bailey

, Whiteside

. Update on paediatric tracheostomy tubes. J Laryngol Otol, 1999; 113(1):35–40.

15.

Fink

, Dhand

, Duarte

, Jenne

, Tobin

. Aerosol delivery from a metered-dose inhaler during mechanical ventilation: an in vitro model. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 1996; 154(2):382–387.

16.

Dolovich

. Assessing nebulizer performance. Respir Care, 2002; 47(11):1290–1301; discussion 1301-1304.

17.

Jauernig

, Mitchell

, Berg

, Dennis

, Kreher

, Lamb

, et al. Position paper: recommendation on the adoption of breathing patterns for infants and small children in general chapter 2.9.44. Preparations for nebulisation. Pharmeur Sci Notes, 2008;(1):31–32.

18.

Lin

, Wan

, Chen

, Fink

, Liu

. Influence of nebulizer type with different pediatric aerosol masks on drug deposition in a model of a spontaneously breathing small child. Respir Care, 2012; 57(11):1894–1900.

19.

McCabe

, Koppenhagen

, Blair

, Zeng

. ProAir HFA delivers warmer, lower-impact, longer-duration plumes containing higher fine particle dose than ventolin HFA. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv, 2012; 25(2):104–109.

20.

Hess

, Fisher

, Williams

, Pooler

, Kacmarek

. Medication nebulizer performance. Effects of diluent volume, nebulizer flow, and nebulizer brand. Chest, 1996; 110(2):498–505.

21.

Ari

, Atalay

, Harwood

, Sheard

, Aljamhan

, Fink

. Influence of nebulizer type, position, and bias flow on aerosol drug delivery in simulated pediatric and adult lung models during mechanical ventilation. Respir Care, 2010; 55(7):845–851.

22.

Dolovich

, Killian

, Wolff

, Obminski

, Newhouse

. Pulmonary aerosol deposition in chronic bronchitis: intermittent positive pressure breathing versus quiet breathing. Am Rev Respir Dis, 1977; 115(3):397–402.

23.

Miller

, Amin

, Palmer

, Shah

, Smaldone

. Aerosol delivery and modern mechanical ventilation: in vitro/in vivo evaluation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2003; 168(10):1205–1209.