Suppr超能文献

机械通气时影响持续雾化气溶胶输送的因素。

Factors Determining Continuous Infusion Aerosol Delivery During Mechanical Ventilation.

机构信息

Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, New York.

Respiratory Care Program, School of Health Technology and Management, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York.

出版信息

Respir Care. 2021 Apr;66(4):573-581. doi: 10.4187/respcare.07715. Epub 2020 Sep 23.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Continuous nebulization of prostacyclins and albuterol by infusion pump during mechanical ventilation evolved as a popular off-label treatment for severe hypoxemic respiratory failure and asthma. Most institutions use a vibrating mesh nebulizer. A new breath-enhanced jet nebulizer is a potential alternative. This study was designed to compare these devices to better define factors influencing continuous infusion aerosol delivery. Device function, ventilator settings, and infusion pump flow were studied in vitro.

METHODS

Using a bench model of adult mechanical ventilation, radiolabeled saline was infused at 6 flows (1.5-12 mL/h) into test nebulizers; 4 examples of each were used in rotation to test device reproducibility. Four breathing patterns with duty cycles (percentage of inspiratory time) ranging from 0.13 to 0.34 were tested. The vibrating mesh nebulizer was installed on the "dry" side of the heated humidifier (37°C). The breath-enhanced jet nebulizer, installed on the "wet" side, was powered by air at 3.5 L/min and 50 psi. Infusion time was 1 h. Inhaled mass of aerosol was collected on a filter at the airway opening. Inhaled mass was expressed as the percentage of the initial syringe radioactivity delivered per hour. Radioactivity deposited in the circuit was measured with a gamma camera. Data were analyzed with multiple linear regression.

RESULTS

Variation in inhaled mass was significantly explained by pump flow and duty cycle (R 0.92) and not by nebulizer technology. Duty cycle effects were more apparent at higher pump flow. Vibrating mesh nebulizers failed to nebulize completely in 20% of the test runs. Mass balance indicated that vibrating mesh nebulizers deposited 15.3% in the humidifier versus 0.2% for breath-enhanced jet nebulizer.

CONCLUSIONS

Aerosol delivery was determined by infusion pump flow and ventilator settings with comparable aerosol delivery between devices. The breath-enhanced jet nebulizer was more reliable than the vibrating mesh nebulizer; 10-12 mL/h was the maximum infusion flow for both nebulizer technologies.

摘要

背景

在机械通气期间,通过输注泵持续雾化前列环素和沙丁胺醇已成为治疗严重低氧性呼吸衰竭和哮喘的一种流行的超说明书治疗方法。大多数机构使用振动网式雾化器。一种新型的呼吸增强射流雾化器是一种潜在的替代方法。本研究旨在通过比较这些设备来更好地定义影响连续输注气溶胶输送的因素。在体外研究了设备功能、呼吸机设置和输注泵流量。

方法

使用成人机械通气的台架模型,以 6 种流速(1.5-12mL/h)将放射性标记盐水注入测试雾化器;每种雾化器旋转使用 4 个样本以测试设备的可重复性。测试了 4 种具有从 0.13 到 0.34 不等的呼吸周期(吸气时间的百分比)的呼吸模式。振动网式雾化器安装在加热加湿器的“干燥”侧(37°C)。呼吸增强射流雾化器安装在“湿”侧,由 3.5L/min 和 50psi 的空气驱动。输注时间为 1 小时。在气道开口处的过滤器上收集吸入的气溶胶质量。吸入的气溶胶质量表示每小时初始注射器放射性的百分比。使用伽马相机测量回路中沉积的放射性。使用多元线性回归分析数据。

结果

吸入质量的变化由泵流量和呼吸周期显著解释(R 0.92),而与雾化器技术无关。在较高的泵流量下,呼吸周期的影响更为明显。振动网式雾化器在 20%的测试运行中未能完全雾化。质量平衡表明,振动网式雾化器在加湿器中沉积了 15.3%,而呼吸增强射流雾化器沉积了 0.2%。

结论

气溶胶输送由输注泵流量和呼吸机设置决定,两种设备的气溶胶输送具有可比性。呼吸增强射流雾化器比振动网式雾化器更可靠;两种雾化器技术的最大输注流量为 10-12mL/h。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验