Inhaled fenoterol-ipratropium bromide in mechanically ventilated patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Bronchodilator administration by pressurized inhaler during invasive mechanical ventilation in adults: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To identify the administration characteristics and connection methods of bronchodilators by pressurized inhalers to the ventilatory circuit of patients under invasive mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

A scope review was conducted following the PRISMA for Scoping Review, using the PubMed, Embase Elsevier, Cochrane Library, and Lilacs databases without language restrictions, up to July 2023. Eligible sources included reviews and consensuses (based on clinical studies), experimental and observational studies involving adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit and undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation, regardless of the underlying condition, who used bronchodilator drugs contained in pressurized inhalers. Information regarding inhalation technique, pressurized inhalers connection mode to the circuit, and patient care were collected by 2 researchers independently, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Studies involving bronchodilators combined with other pharmacological classes in the same device, as well as reviews containing preclinical studies, were excluded.

RESULTS

In total, 23 publications were included, comprising 19 clinical trials and 4 non-randomized experimental studies. Salbutamol (albuterol) was the bronchodilator of study in the majority of the articles (n=18), and the spacer device was the most commonly used to connect the pressurized inhaler to the circuit (n=15), followed by an in-line adapter (n=3), and a direct-acting device without chamber (n=3). Concerning the pressurized inhaler placement in the circuit, 18 studies positioned it in the inspiratory limb, and 19 studies synchronized the jet actuation with the start of the inspiratory phase. Agitation of the pressurized inhaler before each actuation, waiting time between actuations, airway suction before administration, and semi-recumbent patient positioning were the most commonly described measures across the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provided insights into the aspects related to inhalation technique in mechanically ventilated patients, as well as the most prevalent findings and the existing gaps in knowledge regarding bronchodilator administration in this context. The evidence indicates the need for further research on this subject.

Aerosol therapy in adult critically ill patients: a consensus statement regarding aerosol administration strategies during various modes of respiratory support

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice of aerosol delivery in conjunction with respiratory support devices for critically ill adult patients remains a topic of controversy due to the complexity of the clinical scenarios and limited clinical evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To reach a consensus for guiding the clinical practice of aerosol delivery in patients receiving respiratory support (invasive and noninvasive) and identifying areas for future research.

METHODS

A modified Delphi method was adopted to achieve a consensus on technical aspects of aerosol delivery for adult critically ill patients receiving various forms of respiratory support, including mechanical ventilation, noninvasive ventilation, and high-flow nasal cannula. A thorough search and review of the literature were conducted, and 17 international participants with considerable research involvement and publications on aerosol therapy, comprised a multi-professional panel that evaluated the evidence, reviewed, revised, and voted on recommendations to establish this consensus.

RESULTS

We present a comprehensive document with 20 statements, reviewing the evidence, efficacy, and safety of delivering inhaled agents to adults needing respiratory support, and providing guidance for healthcare workers. Most recommendations were based on in-vitro or experimental studies (low-level evidence), emphasizing the need for randomized clinical trials. The panel reached a consensus after 3 rounds anonymous questionnaires and 2 online meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

We offer a multinational expert consensus that provides guidance on the optimal aerosol delivery techniques for patients receiving respiratory support in various real-world clinical scenarios.

[Aerosol Therapy in Intensive Care Unit]

Inhalation therapy is a cornerstone especially in pulmonary diseases or comorbidities, either in invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. In pediatric patients, mainly in respiratory failure of the premature born child inhalation of surfactant is crucial in the therapy. Additional drugs given by inhalation are antibiotics, mucoactive substances and drugs that treat pulmonary hypertension. This article describes main deposition mechanisms of inhalation therapies and presents recommendations for correct performance of inhalation therapy in invasively as well as noninvasively ventilated patients in ICU. Also safety aspects for patients and medical staff during aerosol therapy in the Corona pandemic era are discussed.

Bronchodilators delivered by nebuliser versus pMDI with spacer or DPI for exacerbations of COPD

BACKGROUND

Bronchodilators are a central component for treating exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) all over the world. Clinicians often use nebulisers as a mode of delivery, especially in the acute setting, and many patients seem to benefit from them. However, evidence supporting this choice from systematic analysis is sparse, and available data are frequently biased by the inclusion of asthma patients. Therefore, there is little or no formal guidance regarding the mode of delivery, which has led to a wide variation in practice between and within countries and even among doctors in the same hospital. We assessed the available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to help guide practice in a more uniform way.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of nebulisers versus pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDI) plus spacer or dry powder inhalers (DPI) in bronchodilator therapy for exacerbations of COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trial Register and reference lists of articles up to 1 July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of both parallel and cross-over designs. We included RCTs during COPD exacerbations, whether measured during hospitalisation or in an outpatient setting. We excluded RCTs involving mechanically ventilated patients due to the different condition of both patients and airways in this setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We report results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes eight studies with a total of 250 participants comparing nebuliser versus pMDI plus spacer treatment. We identified no studies comparing DPI with nebulisers. We found two studies assessing the primary outcome of 'change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) one hour after dosing'. We could not pool these studies, but both showed a non-significant difference in favour of the nebuliser group, with similar frequencies of serious adverse events. For the secondary outcome, 'change in FEV1 closest to one hour after dosing': we found a significant difference of 83 ml (95% CI 10 to 156, P = 0.03) in favour of nebuliser treatment. For the secondary outcome of adverse events, we found a non-significant odds ratio of 1.65 (95% CI 0.42 to 6.48) in favour of the pMDI plus spacer group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of evidence in favour of one mode of delivery over another for bronchodilators during exacerbations of COPD. We found no difference between nebulisers versus pMDI plus spacer regarding the primary outcomes of FEV1 at one hour and safety. For the secondary outcome 'change in FEV1 closest to one hour after dosing' during an exacerbation of COPD, we found a greater improvement in FEV1 when treating with nebulisers than with pMDI plus spacers.A limited amount of data are available (eight studies involving 250 participants). These studies were difficult to pool, of low quality and did not provide enough evidence to favour one mode of delivery over another. No data of sufficient quality have been published comparing nebulisers versus DPIs in this setting. More studies are required to assess the optimal mode of delivery during exacerbations of COPD.

High-flow oxygen therapy and other inhaled therapies in intensive care units

In this Series paper, we review the current evidence for the use of high-flow oxygen therapy, inhaled gases, and aerosols in the care of critically ill patients. The available evidence supports the use of high-flow nasal cannulae for selected patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. Heliox might prevent intubation or improve gas flow in mechanically ventilated patients with severe asthma. Additionally, it might improve the delivery of aerosolised bronchodilators in obstructive lung disease in general. Inhaled nitric oxide might improve outcomes in a subset of patients with postoperative pulmonary hypertension who had cardiac surgery; however, it has not been shown to provide long-term benefit in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Inhaled prostacyclins, similar to inhaled nitric oxide, are not recommended for routine use in patients with ARDS, but can be used to improve oxygenation in patients who are not adequately stabilised with traditional therapies. Aerosolised bronchodilators are useful in mechanically ventilated patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but are not recommended for those with ARDS. Use of aerosolised antibiotics for ventilator-associated pneumonia and ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis shows promise, but the delivered dose can be highly variable if proper attention is not paid to the delivery method.

Metered dose inhalers versus nebulizers for aerosol bronchodilator delivery for adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation in critical care units

BACKGROUND

Nebulizers and metered dose inhalers (MDI) have both been adapted for delivering aerosol bronchodilation to mechanically ventilated patients, but there is incomplete knowledge as to the most effective method of delivery.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of nebulizers and MDIs for bronchodilator delivery in invasively ventilated, critically ill adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to Week 19 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to Week 19 2012); CINAHL via EBSCOhost (1982 to Week 19 2012) and reference lists of articles. We searched conference proceedings and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in this field. There were no constraints based on language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including randomized cross-over trials where the order of the intervention was randomized, comparing the nebulizer and MDI for aerosol bronchodilation in mechanically ventilated adult patients in critical care units.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information where required. We collected information about adverse effects from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included three trials, two addressing the primary outcome measure of a reduction of airway resistance (measured as a reduction in interrupter and additional airway resistance) with a total of 28 patients (n =10, n =18) and two addressing adverse changes to haemodynamic observations with a total of 36 patients (n =18, n =18). Limitations in data availability and reporting in the included trials precluded meta-analysis and therefore the present review consisted of a descriptive analysis. Risk of bias in the included trials was judged as low or of unknown risk across the majority of items in the 'Risk of bias' tool.Cautious interpretation of the included study results suggests that nebulizers could be a more effective method of bronchodilator administration than MDI in terms of a change in resistance. No apparent changes to haemodynamic observations (measured as an increase in heart rate) were associated with either mode of delivery. Due to missing data issues, meta analyses were not possible. Additionally, small sample sizes and variability between the studies with regards to patient diagnoses, bronchodilator agent and administration technique mean that it would be speculative to infer definitive recommendations based on these results at this time. This is insufficient evidence to determine which is the most effective delivery system between nebuliser and MDI for aerosol bronchodilation in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Existing randomized controlled trials, including randomized cross-over trials where the order of the intervention was randomized, comparing nebulizer and MDI for aerosol bronchodilation in mechanically ventilated adult patients do not provide sufficient evidence to support either delivery method at this time.

Inhalation therapy in patients receiving mechanical ventilation: an update

Incremental gains in understanding the influence of various factors on aerosol delivery in concert with technological advancements over the past 2 decades have fueled an ever burgeoning literature on aerosol therapy during mechanical ventilation. In-line use of pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and nebulizers is influenced by a host of factors, some of which are unique to ventilator-supported patients. This article reviews the impact of various factors on aerosol delivery with pMDIs and nebulizers, and elucidates the correlation between in-vitro estimates and in-vivo measurement of aerosol deposition in the lung. Aerosolized bronchodilator therapy with pMDIs and nebulizers is commonly employed in intensive care units (ICUs), and bronchodilators are among the most frequently used therapies in mechanically ventilated patients. The use of inhaled bronchodilators is not restricted to mechanically ventilated patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma, as they are routinely employed in other ventilator-dependent patients without confirmed airflow obstruction. The efficacy and safety of bronchodilator therapy has generated a great deal of interest in employing other inhaled therapies, such as surfactant, antibiotics, prostacyclins, diuretics, anticoagulants and mucoactive agents, among others, in attempts to improve outcomes in critically ill ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

How best to deliver aerosol medications to mechanically ventilated patients

Pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and nebulizers are employed routinely for aerosol delivery to ventilator-supported patients, but the ventilator circuit and artificial airway previously were thought to be major barriers to effective delivery of aerosols to patients receiving mechanical ventilation. In the past two decades, several investigators have shown that careful attention to many factors, such as the position of the patient, the type of aerosol generator and its configuration in the ventilator circuit, aerosol particle size, artificial airway, conditions in the ventilator circuit, and ventilatory parameters, is necessary to optimize aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation. The best techniques for aerosol delivery during noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation are not well established as yet, and the efficiency of aerosol delivery in this setting is lower than that during invasive mechanical ventilation. The most efficient methods of using the newer hydrofluoroalkane-pMDIs and vibrating mesh nebulizers in ventilator-supported patients also require further evaluation. When optimal techniques of administration are employed, the efficiency of aerosolized drug delivery in mechanically ventilated patients is comparable to that achieved in ambulatory patients.

Aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation: from basic techniques to new devices

Pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and nebulizers are routinely employed for aerosol delivery in mechanically ventilated patients. A significant proportion of the aerosol deposits in the ventilator circuit and artificial airway, thereby reducing the inhaled drug mass. Factors influencing aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation differ from those in spontaneously breathing patients. The English language literature on aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation was reviewed. Marked variations in the efficiency of drug delivery with pMDIs and nebulizers occur due to differences in the technique of administration. Careful attention to five factors, viz., the aerosol generator, aerosol particle size, conditions in the ventilator circuit, artificial airway, and ventilator parameters, is necessary to optimize aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation. Factors influencing drug delivery during NPPV are not well understood, and the efficiency of aerosol delivery in this setting is lower than that during invasive mechanical ventilaiton. With an optimal technique of administration the efficiency of aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation is similar to that achieved during spontaneous breathing. Further research is needed to optimize aerosol delivery during NPPV.

Inhaled bronchodilator administration during mechanical ventilation: how to optimize it, and for which clinical benefit?

Bronchodilators are frequently used in ICU patients, and are the most common medications administered by inhalation during mechanical ventilation. The amount of bronchodilator that deposits at its site of action depends on the amount of drug, inhaled mass, deposited mass, and particle size distribution. Mechanical ventilation challenges both inhaled mass and lung deposition by specific features, such as a ventilatory circuit, an endotracheal tube, and ventilator settings. Comprehensive in vitro studies have shown that an endotracheal tube is not as significant a barrier for the drug to travel as anticipated. Key variables of drug deposition are attachments of the inhalation device in the inspiratory line 10 to 30 cm to the endotracheal tube, use of chamber with metered-dose inhaler, dry air, high tidal volume, low respiratory frequency, and low inspiratory flow, which can increase the drug deposition. In vivo studies showed that a reduction by roughly 15% of the respiratory resistance was achieved with inhaled bronchodilators during invasive mechanical ventilation. The role of ventilatory settings is not as clear in vivo, and primary factors for optimal delivery and physiologic effects were medication dose and device location. Nebulizers and pressurized metered-dose inhalers can equally achieve physiologic end points. The effects of bronchodilators should be carefully evaluated, which can easily be done with the interrupter technique. With the non-invasive ventilation, the data regarding drug delivery and physiologic effects are still limited. With the bilevel ventilators the inhalation device should be located between the leak port and face mask. Further studies should investigate the effects of inhaled bronchodilators on patient outcome and methods to optimize delivery of inhaled bronchodilators during non-invasive ventilation.

Inhalation therapy in invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this article is to discuss the various factors that influence aerosol delivery in mechanically ventilated patients and clarify optimal techniques for aerosol administration in this patient population. Clinical use of various inhaled therapies in patients receiving invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation is also discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

With optimal techniques for using pressurized metered-dose inhalers and nebulizers in ventilator circuits, the efficiency of inhaled drug delivery in mechanically ventilated patients is comparable to that in ambulatory patients. Techniques for enhancing inhaled drug delivery during noninvasive positive pressure ventilation are also being investigated.

SUMMARY

Pressurized metered-dose inhalers of bronchodilator and corticosteroid aerosols are more efficient and convenient to use than nebulizers for routine therapy in ventilated patients. Nebulizers are, however, more versatile and are employed to generate aerosols of bronchodilators, corticosteroids, antibiotics, prostaglandins, surfactant, and mucolytic agents. Factors influencing drug delivery during noninvasive positive pressure ventilation are not fully understood as yet, and further work is needed to enhance drug delivery in this setting. Improvements in drug formulations and the design and efficiency of aerosol generating devices have led to increasing application of inhaled therapies in mechanically ventilated patients.

Treatment with aerosols in mechanically ventilated patients: is it worthwhile?

Aerosol medications are commonly used in mechanically ventilated patients. Several classes of drugs with different properties and indications may be given by inhalation. In all cases, compared with the systemic route, the inhaled therapy has the main advantage that for a given therapeutic response, the drug dose is several-fold lower, while the systemic absorption is negligible, thus the side effects are greatly minimized. In addition, for some medications the systemic route either causes non-acceptable side effects or results in considerably inferior therapeutic response, rendering the inhaled route the method of choice of drug administration. Bronchodilators, corticosteroids, vasoactive drugs, surfactants, antibiotics, helium and perfluorocarbons are the medications that can be given by inhalation during mechanical ventilation. Some of those represent part of the standard treatment for various groups of mechanically ventilated patients, while the role of others has not been well established yet.

Influence of respiratory efforts on b2-agonist induced bronchodilation in mechanically ventilated COPD patients: A prospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

Several in vitro studies have shown that at similar tidal volume (VT), bronchodilator delivery to target sites is significantly lower during controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV) than that during simulated spontaneous breathing. However, the influence of active respiratory efforts on the magnitude of b2-agonist induced bronchodilation in mechanically ventilated patients has not been examined.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the influence of controlled and assisted modes of ventilatory support on the bronchodilative effect induced by b2-agonists administered with a metered dose inhaler (MDI) and a spacer device in a homogeneous group of mechanically ventilated patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

Prospective clinical study. Ten mechanically ventilated patients with acute exacerbation of COPD were prospectively randomized to receive 4 puffs of salbutamol (S, 100 micro g/puff) either with volume-controlled (VC) or pressure-support (PS) ventilation. On PS the pressure level was such that VT was comparable between ventilatory modes. After a 6-h washout period, patients were crossed-over to receive the drug by the alternative mode of ventilation. Static and dynamic airway pressures, minimum (R(int)) and maximum (R(rs)) inspiratory resistance, the difference between R(rs) and R(int) (DeltaR), end-inspiratory static compliance of the respiratory system (C(rs)), intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP(i)) and heart rate (HR) were measured before and at 15, 30, 60, 120, 180 and 240 min after S administration.

RESULTS

S caused a significant decrease in dynamic and static airway pressures, PEEP(i), R(int) and R(rs). These changes were not influenced by the ventilatory mode and were evident at 15, 30, 60 and 120 min after S. HR, C(rs) and DeltaR did not change after S administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the use of propofol with its presumed bronchodilative properties as a shortcoming of our study, it is concluded that the magnitude of bronchodilation induced by salbutamol delivered by an MDI and a spacer device in mechanically ventilated COPD patients is not affected by the presence or absence of active respiratory efforts.

The effects of nebulized salbutamol, external positive end-expiratory pressure, and their combination on respiratory mechanics, hemodynamics, and gas exchange in mechanically ventilated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients

We hypothesized that combined salbutamol and external positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEPe) may present additive benefits in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation. In 10 anesthetized, mechanically ventilated, and bronchodilator-responsive COPD patients exhibiting moderate intrinsic PEEP (PEEPi), we assessed respiratory system (rs) mechanics, hemodynamics, and gas exchange at (a) baseline (zero PEEPe [ZEEPe]), (b) 30 min after 5 mg of nebulized salbutamol administration (ZEEPe-S), (c) 30 min after setting PEEPe at baseline PEEPi level (PEEPe), and (d) 30 min after 5 mg of nebulized salbutamol administration with PEEPe maintained unchanged (PEEPe-S). Return of determined variable values to baseline values was confirmed before PEEPe application. Relative to ZEEPe, (a) at ZEEP-S, PEEPi (4.8 +/- 0.7 versus 7.0 +/- 1.1 cm H(2)O), functional residual capacity change (115.6 +/- 23.1 versus 202.1 +/- 46.0 mL), minimal rs (airway) resistance (9.3 +/- 1.4 versus 11.8 +/- 2.2 cm H(2)O.L(-1).s(-1)), and additional rs resistance (5.2 +/- 1.4 versus 7.2 +/- 1.3 cm H(2)O.L(-1).s(-1)) were reduced (P < 0.01), and hemodynamics were improved; (b) at PEEPe, PEEPi (3.7 +/- 1.3 cm H(2)O) was reduced (P < 0.01), and gas exchange was improved; and (c) at PEEPe-S, PEEPi (2.0 +/- 1.2 cm H(2)O) was minimized, and rs mechanics (static rs elastance included), hemodynamics, and gas exchange were improved. Conclusively, in carefully preselected COPD patients, bronchodilation/PEEPe exhibits additive benefits.

The Effect of Volatile Anesthetics on Respiratory System Resistance in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

We examined the effect of isoflurane and sevoflurane on respiratory system resistance (Rmin,rs) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The diagnosis of COPD rests on the presence of airway obstruction, which is only partially reversible after bronchodilator treatment. Ninety-six consecutive patients undergoing thoracic surgery for peripheral lung cancer were enrolled. They were divided into two groups: preoperative forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity ratio <70% or >70%. Rmin,rs was measured after 5 and 10 min of maintenance anesthesia by using the constant flow/rapid occlusion method. Maintenance of anesthesia was randomized to thiopental 0.30 mg . kg(-1) . min(-1) or 1.1 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration end-tidal isoflurane or sevoflurane. Eleven patients were excluded: two because anesthesia was erroneously induced with propofol and nine because of an incorrect tube position. Maintenance with thiopental failed to decrease Rmin,rs, whereas both volatile anesthetics were able to decrease Rmin,rs in patients with COPD. The percentage of patients who did not respond to volatile anesthetics was larger in those with COPD as well. In conclusion, we have demonstrated that isoflurane and sevoflurane produce bronchodilation in patients with COPD.

Rationale for the choice of an aerosol delivery system

The choice of an aerosol delivery system depends on numerous factors such as the drug itself, the characteristics of the aerosol generator, the patient and his or her disease, the physician, and the clinical setting, notably an emergency situation or not. Some rules always apply: an ultrasonic nebulizer should not be used to aerosolize a drug suspension; whenever possible, the same type of aerosol generator should be used for all inhaled medications received by a given patient; for outpatients, education is a major factor to ensure treatment efficacy. When the deposition of the aerosolized drug is aimed at the terminal respiratory units, nebulizers that generate micronic aerosols should be chosen. When the deposition of the aerosolized drug is aimed at the conducting airways, the metered dose inhaler (MDI) is the first choice. However, the MDI is often ill-used, notably in children and elderly people. Therefore, other inhalation devices have been developed: spacers, dry-powder inhalers, breath-actuated MDIs and, more recently, piezo-electric devices. They have been shown to increase lung deposition of drugs in poor coordinators but they all have limitations, which may affect their clinical efficacy. These limitations include the cumbersome dimensions of spacers, the dependency of lung deposition of dry powders on the inspiratory flow rate, the need for reformulation of breath-actuated or not MDIs with CFC-free gases. Nebulization of drugs should be considered only when no portable device is available for the considered drug, or in case of failure of other forms of aerosol administration.

Bronchodilator therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

This paper reviews new developments in bronchodilator therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Most patients with COPD respond to bronchodilators, but we have no reliable way to predict which patients will respond. When responsiveness is assessed, changes in lung volume as well as improvements in FEV1 should be considered. The combination of a beta-agonist and an anticholinergic agent produces greater improvement than either agent alone. Anticholinergic agents have few adverse side effects in patients with COPD, but concern remains about the possible cardiac side effects of beta-agonists. No clear answer exists about whether new, long-acting beta-agonists, such as salmeterol, should supplant anticholinergic agents as "first-line" therapy in COPD.

Bronchodilator delivery with metered-dose inhaler during mechanical ventilation

The delivery of bronchodilators with metered-dose inhaler (MDI) in mechanically ventilated patients has attracted considerable interest in recent years. This is because the use of the MDI has several advantages over the nebulizer, such as reduced cost, ease of administration, less personnel time, reliability of dosing and a lower risk of contamination. A spacer device is fundamental in order to demonstrate the efficacy of the bronchodilatory therapy delivered by MDI. Provided that the technique of administration is appropriate, MDIs are as effective as nebulizers, despite a significantly lower dose of bronchodilator given by the MDI.