Rau Joseph L, Ari Arzu, Restrepo Ruben D
Cardiopulmonary Care Sciences, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, USA.
Respir Care. 2004 Feb;49(2):174-9.
Design differences among pneumatically powered, small-volume nebulizers affect drug disposition (percentage of the dose delivered to the patient, lost to deposition in the equipment, and lost via exhalation to ambient air) and thus affect drug availability and efficacy.
Evaluate in vitro the dose disposition with 5 nebulizer models, of 3 types (constant-output, breath-enhanced, and dosimetric), using simulated normal, adult breathing.
We compared 5 nebulizer models: 2 constant-output (Misty-Neb and SideStream), 1 breath-enhanced (Pari LCD), and 2 dosimetric (Circulaire and AeroEclipse). Each nebulizer was filled with a 3-mL unit-dose of albuterol sulfate and powered by oxygen at 8 L/min. The nebulizers were connected to an induction throat, connected to a breathing simulator. We measured (1) inhaled drug (subdivided into mass deposited in the induction throat and mass deposited in the filter at the distal end of the induction throat), (2) exhaled drug (lost to the ambient air), (3) drug lost to deposition in the apparatus, and (4) drug left in the unit-dose bottle. The duration of nebulization (until sputter) was measured with a stopwatch. All drug amounts were analyzed via spectrophotometry and expressed as a percentage of the total dose.
The mean +/- SD inhaled drug percentages were: Misty-Neb 17.2 +/- 0.4%, SideStream 15.8 +/- 2.8%, Pari LCD 15.2 +/- 4.2%, Circulaire 8.7 +/- 1.0%, and AeroEclipse 38.7 +/- 1.3%. The mean +/- SD percentages of drug lost to the ambient air were: Misty-Neb 26.8 +/- 0.7%, SideStream 17.3 +/- 0.4%, Pari LCD 18.3 +/- 0.8%, Circulaire 12.3 +/- 0.8%, and AeroEclipse 6.6 +/- 3.3%. The mean +/- SD percentages of drug lost to deposition in the apparatus were: Misty-Neb 52.3 +/- 0.6%, SideStream 63.4 +/- 3.0%, Pari LCD 62.5 +/- 4.0%, Circulaire 75.8 +/- 0.5%, and AeroEclipse 51.0 +/- 2.1%. Duration of nebulization was shortest with the Circulaire and longest with the AeroEclipse (p < 0.05 via 1-way analysis of variance).
The nebulizers we tested differ significantly in overall drug disposition. The dosimetric AeroEclipse provided the largest inhaled drug mass and the lowest loss to ambient air, with the test conditions we used. method.
气动小型雾化器的设计差异会影响药物分布(输送给患者的剂量百分比、在设备中沉积损失的剂量以及通过呼气散失到周围空气中的剂量),从而影响药物的可用性和疗效。
使用模拟的正常成人呼吸,在体外评估3种类型(恒量输出型、呼吸增强型和剂量型)的5种雾化器模型的剂量分布情况。
我们比较了5种雾化器模型:2种恒量输出型(Misty-Neb和SideStream)、1种呼吸增强型(Pari LCD)和2种剂量型(Circulaire和AeroEclipse)。每个雾化器装入3毫升单位剂量的硫酸沙丁胺醇,以8升/分钟的氧气驱动。雾化器连接到一个感应喉管,该喉管又连接到一个呼吸模拟器。我们测量了:(1)吸入药物(细分为沉积在感应喉管中的质量和沉积在感应喉管末端过滤器中的质量),(2)呼出药物(散失到周围空气中),(3)在设备中沉积损失的药物,以及(4)留在单位剂量瓶中的药物。用秒表测量雾化持续时间(直到喷雾停止)。所有药物量通过分光光度法进行分析,并表示为总剂量的百分比。
吸入药物的平均±标准差百分比分别为:Misty-Neb 17.2±0.4%,SideStream 15.8±2.8%,Pari LCD 15.2±4.2%,Circulaire 8.7±1.0%,AeroEclipse 38.7±1.3%。散失到周围空气中的药物平均±标准差百分比分别为:Misty-Neb 26.8±0.7%,SideStream 17.3±0.4%,Pari LCD 18.3±0.8%,Circulaire 12.3±0.8%,AeroEclipse 6.6±3.3%。在设备中沉积损失的药物平均±标准差百分比分别为:Misty-Neb 52.3±0.6%,SideStream 63.4±3.0%,Pari LCD 62.5±4.0%,Circulaire 75.8±0.5%,AeroEclipse 51.0±2.1%。Circulaire的雾化持续时间最短,AeroEclipse最长(通过单因素方差分析,p<0.05)。
我们测试的雾化器在总体药物分布上有显著差异。在所使用的测试条件下,剂量型的AeroEclipse提供了最大的吸入药物量和最低的周围空气损失量。 方法。