Suppr超能文献

PARI LC STAR® 射流雾化器和一种研究用 eFlow® 雾化器的沉积量和沉积速度比较。

A comparison of amount and speed of deposition between the PARI LC STAR® jet nebulizer and an investigational eFlow® nebulizer.

机构信息

Division of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

出版信息

J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2011 Jun;24(3):157-63. doi: 10.1089/jamp.2010.0861. Epub 2011 Mar 1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The potency and physical properties of many of the drugs used in the treatment of cystic fibrosis necessitates the use of nebulization, a relatively time-consuming pulmonary delivery method. Newer, faster, and more efficient delivery systems are being proposed. The purposes of this study was to compare the length of time it took to deliver the equivalent of normal saline nebulized for 10 min in a PARI LC STAR(®) nebulizer to that of an investigational PARI eFlow(®).

METHODS

Six normal adults inhaled a 4-mL (36-mg) charge volume of saline from the LC STAR(®) or a 2.5-mL (22.5-mg) charge volume from the investigational eFlow(®). The saline was mixed with (99m)Tc-DTPA to allow two-dimensional imaging. The inhalation was preceded by a xenon equilibration scan to allow more accurate separation of deposition into central and peripheral lung regions.

RESULTS

The investigational eFlow(®) delivered 8.6 ± 1.0 mg, approximately 90% of the lung dose compared to the LC STAR(®), 9.6 ± 1.0 mg, but did in less than half the time (p < 0.02 for both). There were no differences in central versus peripheral distribution for either device.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion the investigational eFlow(®) was both faster and more efficient than the LC STAR(®).

摘要

背景

许多用于治疗囊性纤维化的药物的效力和物理性质需要使用雾化,这是一种相对耗时的肺部输送方法。目前正在提出更新、更快和更有效的输送系统。本研究的目的是比较在 PARI LC STAR(®)雾化器中雾化相当于正常生理盐水 10 分钟所需的时间与新型 PARI eFlow(®)所需的时间。

方法

六名正常成年人吸入了来自 LC STAR(®)的 4 毫升(36 毫克)生理盐水剂量或来自新型 eFlow(®)的 2.5 毫升(22.5 毫克)生理盐水剂量。生理盐水与 (99m)Tc-DTPA 混合,以便进行二维成像。吸入前进行氙气平衡扫描,以更准确地将沉积分离到中央和外周肺部区域。

结果

新型 eFlow(®)输送了 8.6 ± 1.0 mg,约为 LC STAR(®)输送的 96% ± 1.0 mg,但时间不到一半(两者均 p < 0.02)。两种设备的中央与外周分布均无差异。

结论

总之,新型 eFlow(®)既快又比 LC STAR(®)更有效。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验