ElHansy Muhammad H E, Boules Marina E, El Essawy Assem Fouad Mohamed, Al-Kholy Mohamed Bakry, Abdelrahman Maha M, Said Amira S A, Hussein Raghda R S, Abdelrahim Mohamed E
Clinical Pharmacy Department, Teaching Hospital of Faculty of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt.
Clinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef, Egypt.
Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2017 Aug;45:159-163. doi: 10.1016/j.pupt.2017.06.004. Epub 2017 Jun 13.
Patient receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) may benefit from medical aerosol, but guidance on dosing with different aerosol devices is limited to in-vitro studies. The study was designed to compare aerosol delivery with five different types of aerosol generators during IMV.
In randomized design, 60 (30 female) mechanically ventilated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients were assigned to one of 5 groups. Groups 1-4 received 5000 μg salbutamol using Aerogen Pro (PRO), Aerogen Solo (SOLO), NIVO vibrating mesh and jet nebulizers (JN), respectively, while group 5 received 800 μg (8 puffs) of salbutamol via metered dose inhaler with AeroChamber-MV (MDI-AC). All devices were place in the inspiratory limb of ventilator downstream from humidifier which was switched off while delivery. Patients received the inhaled dose on day 1 and provided urine 30 post dosing. They also recived the same inhaled dose with a filter before the endotracheal tube on day 2. Amount of salbutamol excreted in urine 30 min post inhalation and the amount deposited on the filter from all the COPD patients were determined as indeces of pulmonary deposition and systemic absorption, respectively.
No significant difference was found between the 3 vibrating mesh nebulizers (VMNs). The in-vivo and ex-vivo testing showed that all the VMNs resulted in better aerosol delivery compared to JN (p < 0.01). However, MDI-AC resulted in better aerosol delivery to VMNs but must be accompanied with careful attention and proper delivery of MDI-AC doses by healthcare provider.
VMNs can be exchanged with each other, with no dose adjustment. However, dose adjustment is a must when replacing VMNs by JN or MDI-AC. This similarity and difference between the 5 aerosol delivery methods suggest that for IMV patients, aerosol delivery methods should be chosen or substituted with care.
接受有创机械通气(IMV)的患者可能从医用气雾剂中获益,但关于不同气雾剂装置给药的指导仅限于体外研究。本研究旨在比较IMV期间五种不同类型气雾剂发生器的气雾剂递送情况。
采用随机设计,将60例(30例女性)机械通气的慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者分为5组。第1 - 4组分别使用Aerogen Pro(PRO)、Aerogen Solo(SOLO)、NIVO振动网式雾化器和喷射雾化器(JN)给予5000μg沙丁胺醇,而第5组通过带有AeroChamber - MV的定量吸入器(MDI - AC)给予800μg(8喷)沙丁胺醇。所有装置均置于呼吸机吸气支中加湿器下游,给药时关闭加湿器。患者在第1天接受吸入剂量,并在给药后30分钟提供尿液。他们在第2天还在气管插管前使用过滤器接受相同的吸入剂量。分别将吸入后30分钟尿液中排出的沙丁胺醇量和所有COPD患者过滤器上沉积的量作为肺沉积和全身吸收的指标。
三种振动网式雾化器(VMN)之间未发现显著差异。体内和体外测试表明,与JN相比,所有VMN的气雾剂递送效果更好(p < 0.01)。然而,MDI - AC的气雾剂递送效果优于VMN,但医护人员必须密切关注并正确给予MDI - AC剂量。
VMN可相互替换,无需调整剂量。然而,用JN或MDI - AC替代VMN时必须调整剂量。这五种气雾剂递送方法之间的这种异同表明,对于IMV患者,应谨慎选择或替换气雾剂递送方法。