In vitro comparison between inspiration synchronized and continuous vibrating mesh nebulizer during trans-nasal aerosol delivery

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 delivery through high-flow nasal therapy: Technical issues and clinical benefits

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is an oxygen delivery method particularly used in patients affected by hypoxemic respiratory failure. In comparison with the conventional "low flow" oxygen delivery systems, it showed several important clinical benefits. The possibility to nebulize drugs via HFNC represents a desirable medical practice because it allows the administration of inhaled drugs, mostly bronchodilators, without the interruption or modification of the concomitant oxygen therapy. HFNC, by itself has shown to exert a small but significant bronchodilator effect and improves muco-ciliary clearance; thus, the nebulization of bronchodilators through the HFNC circuit may potentially increase their pharmacological activity. Several technical issues have been observed which include the type of the nebulizer that should be used, its position within the HFNC circuit, and the optimal gas flow rates to ensure an efficient drug delivery to the lungs both in "quiet" and "distressed" breathing patterns. The aim of this review has been to summarize the scientific evidence coming from "in vitro" studies and to discuss the results of "in vivo" studies performed in adult subjects, mainly affected by obstructive lung diseases. Most studies seem to indicate the vibrating mesh nebulizer as the most efficient type of nebulizer and suggest to place it preferentially upstream from the humidifier chamber. In a quite breathing patterns, the inhaled dose seems to increase with lower flow rates while in a "distressed" breathing pattern, the aerosol delivery is higher when gas flow was set below the patient's inspiratory flow, with a plateau effect seen when the gas flow reaches approximately 50% of the inspiratory flow. Although several studies have demonstrated that the percentage of the loaded dose nebulized via HFNC reaching the lungs is small, the bronchodilator effect of albuterol seems not to be impaired when compared to the conventional inhaled delivery methods. This is probably attributed to its pharmacological activity. Prospective and well-designed studies in different cohort of patients are needed to standardize and demonstrate the efficacy of the procedure.

The Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Device, Nebulizer Type, and Placement on Trans-Nasal Aerosol Drug Delivery: An In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND

Aerosol delivery via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been increasingly used in recent years. However, the effects of different HFNC devices, nebulizer types, and placement on aerosol deposition remain largely unknown.

METHODS

An adult manikin with anatomically correct upper airway was used with a collection filter placed between the manikin's trachea and a breathing simulator, composed of a dual-chamber model lung driven by a critical care ventilator. Three HFNC device configurations were compared, with vibrating mesh nebulizer and small-volume nebulizer placed at the humidifier (inlet for Optiflow and outlet for Airvo 2) and proximal to the nasal cannula at gas flows of 10, 20, 40 and 60 L/min, in quiet and distressed breathing patterns. Albuterol (2.5 mg) was nebulized for each condition (no. = 3). The drug was eluted from the collection filter and assayed with ultraviolet spectrophotometry (276 nm).

RESULTS

At all settings, except when a nebulizer was placed proximal to the nasal cannula with the Optiflow and when the HFNC flow was set at 60 L/min, the vibrating mesh nebulizer generated a higher inhaled dose than did the small-volume nebulizer (all P < .05). With the exception of distressed breathing at an HFNC flow of 10 L/min, the inhaled dose with the vibrating mesh nebulizer placed at the humidifier was greater than with the vibrating mesh nebulizer placed proximal to the nasal cannula (all P < .05), Optiflow provided a higher inhaled dose than did Airvo 2 with either AirSpiral or 900PT501 circuits with the vibrating mesh nebulizer placed at the humidifier (all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

During transnasal aerosol delivery, the vibrating mesh nebulizer generated a higher inhaled dose than did the small-volume nebulizer when the nebulizer was placed at the humidifier. With the vibrating mesh nebulizer placed at the humidifier and an HFNC flow > 10 L/min, the inhaled dose was higher than with the vibrating mesh nebulizer placed proximal to the nasal cannula, and the inhaled dose was higher with Optiflow than with Airvo 2.

Bronchodilator Delivery via High-Flow Nasal Cannula: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare the Effects of Gas Flows

(1) Background: Aerosol delivery via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has attracted increasing clinical interest. In vitro studies report that the ratio of HFNC gas flow to patient inspiratory flow (GF:IF) is a key factor in the efficiency of trans-nasal aerosol delivery. (2) Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, patients with a history of COPD or asthma and documented positive responses to inhaled bronchodilators in an outpatient pulmonary function laboratory were recruited. Subjects were randomized to receive inhalation at gas flow ratio settings of: GF:IF = 0.5, GF:IF = 1.0, or GF = 50 L/min. Subjects were assigned to inhale saline (control) followed by salbutamol via HFNC with cumulative doses of 0.5 mg, 1.5 mg, 3.5 mg, and 7.5 mg. Spirometry was performed at baseline and 10-12 min after each inhalation. (3) Results: 75 subjects (49 asthma and 26 COPD) demonstrating bronchodilator response were enrolled. Per the robust ATS/ERS criteria no difference was observed between flows, however using the criteria of post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁) reaching the screening post-bronchodilator FEV₁ with salbutamol, a higher percentage of subjects receiving GF:IF = 0.5 met the criteria at a cumulative dose of 1.5 mg than those receiving GF:IF = 1.0, and GF = 50 L/min (64% vs. 29% vs. 27%, respectively, p = 0.011). Similarly at 3.5 mg (88% vs. 54% vs. 46%, respectively, p = 0.005). The effective dose at GF:IF = 0.5 was 1.5 mg while for GF = 50 L/min it was 3.5 mg. (4) Conclusions: During salbutamol delivery via HFNC, cumulative doses of 1.5 mg to 3.5 mg resulted in effective bronchodilation. Applying the robust ATS/ERS criteria no difference was observed between the flows, however using the more sensitive criteria of subjects reaching post screening FEV₁ to salbutamol via HFNC, a higher number of subjects responded to the doses of 0.5 mg and 1.5 mg when HFNC gas flow was set at 50% of patient peak inspiratory flow.

Narrative review of practical aspects of aerosol delivery via high-flow nasal cannula

Using high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as a "vehicle" to administer aerosolized medication has attracted clinicians' interest in recent years. In this paper, we summarize the current evidence to answer the common questions raised by clinicians about this new aerosol delivery route and best practices of administration. Benefits of trans-nasal aerosol delivery include increased comfort, ability to speak, eat, and drink for patients while meeting a range of oxygen requirements, particularly for those who need to inhale aerosolized medication for long periods. Aerosol administration via HFNC has been shown to be well tolerated by children and adults, with comparable or better delivery efficacy than other interfaces, ranging from 2-20%. In vitro and in vivo scintigraphy studies among pediatric and adult populations reported that the inhaled dose delivered via a vibrating mesh nebulizer is 2 to 3 fold greater than that via a jet nebulizer. For adults, placement of nebulizer at the inlet of humidifier increases inhaled dose while reducing rainout obstructing nasal prongs. When HFNC gas flow is set below patient inspiratory flow, aerosol deposition is higher than when the gas flow exceeds patient inspiratory flow; thus, if tolerated, titrating down HFNC gas flow during trans-nasal aerosol delivery, with close monitoring and the use of unit dose with high concentration are recommended. Trans-nasal pulmonary aerosol delivery has not been shown to increase bioaerosols generated by patients, but gas flow may disperse aerosols. Placement of a surgical or procedure mask over HFNC might reduce aerosol dispersion.

A narrative review on trans-nasal pulmonary aerosol delivery

The use of trans-nasal pulmonary aerosol delivery via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has expanded in recent years. However, various factors influencing aerosol delivery in this setting have not been precisely defined, and no consensus has emerged regarding the optimal techniques for aerosol delivery with HFNC. Based on a comprehensive literature search, we reviewed studies that assessed trans-nasal pulmonary aerosol delivery with HFNC by in vitro experiments, and in vivo, by radiolabeled, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies. In these investigations, the type of nebulizer employed and its placement, carrier gas, the relationship between gas flow and patient’s inspiratory flow, aerosol delivery strategies (intermittent unit dose vs continuous administration by infusion pump), and open vs closed mouth breathing influenced aerosol delivery. The objective of this review was to provide rational recommendations for optimizing aerosol delivery with HFNC in various clinical settings.