Division of Respiratory Care, Department of Cardiopulmonary Sciences, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois.
Respir Care. 2023 Nov 25;68(12):1657-1661. doi: 10.4187/respcare.10777.
Aerosol delivery via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has gained popularity due to the increased use of the modality for treating hypoxemic and hypercapnic respiratory failure. Various HFNC devices are available in the United States; however, the effectiveness of aerosol delivery via HFNC devices remains unclear. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the impact of various commercially available devices on transnasal aerosol delivery.
This was a bench study that used a 2-chamber lung model, in which one chamber was connected to an adult manikin with anatomically correct upper-airway proportions. The other chamber was connected to a critical care ventilator used to simulate spontaneous breathing. A size large nasal cannula was placed at the nasal opening of the manikin. Five different HFNC devices (Hamilton-C1, OptiFlow, Airvo2, V60 Plus, and Vapotherm) were compared. Four flow settings were used on each device, with a vibrating mesh nebulizer placed at the humidifier. Salbutamol (2.5 mg/3 mL) was used during the experiments to quantify inhaled drug doses. A collection filter was placed between the manikin's trachea and the lung model. The drug was eluted from the filter and assayed with ultraviolet spectrophotometry (276 nm).
Among the 5 HFNC devices, OptiFlow had the highest inhaled dose at 10 L/min (mean ± SD 18.2% ± 1.2%). At 20 L/min, the Hamilton-C1 (mean ± SD 13.5% ± 0.4%) performed marginally better than the OptiFlow (mean ± SD 12.6% ± 1.9%) and Airvo2 (mean ± SD 12.8% ± 1%). At high flow settings (40-60 L/min), the inhaled dose of Hamilton-C1 was 2-3 times that of the Airvo2 and V60 Plus. When compared with the other devices, the mean inhaled dose with the Vapotherm was lower (0.9-2.5%). In all devices, the inhaled dose decreased as the flow increased.
Transnasal aerosol delivery was significantly impacted by the types of HFNC devices and flow settings. Nominal doses might need to be adjusted if changing HFNC devices or flow is not an option.
由于高流量鼻导管(HFNC)在治疗低氧血症和高碳酸血症性呼吸衰竭方面的应用越来越多,因此该疗法已广受欢迎。美国有多种 HFNC 设备,但 HFNC 设备输送气溶胶的效果仍不清楚。因此,本研究旨在探讨各种市售设备对经鼻输送气溶胶的影响。
这是一项使用双腔肺模型的基础研究,其中一个腔与具有解剖学正确的上呼吸道比例的成人人体模型相连。另一个腔与用于模拟自主呼吸的重症监护呼吸机相连。将一个大尺寸的鼻导管放置在人体模型的鼻口处。比较了五种不同的 HFNC 设备(Hamilton-C1、OptiFlow、Airvo2、V60 Plus 和 Vapotherm)。每个设备使用四种流量设置,在加湿器处放置一个振动网式雾化器。在实验过程中使用沙丁胺醇(2.5mg/3mL)来量化吸入的药物剂量。在人体模型的气管和肺模型之间放置一个收集过滤器。从过滤器中洗脱药物,并通过紫外分光光度法(276nm)进行检测。
在 5 种 HFNC 设备中,OptiFlow 在 10L/min 时的吸入剂量最高(平均值±标准差 18.2%±1.2%)。在 20L/min 时,Hamilton-C1(平均值±标准差 13.5%±0.4%)的性能略优于 OptiFlow(平均值±标准差 12.6%±1.9%)和 Airvo2(平均值±标准差 12.8%±1%)。在高流量设置(40-60L/min)下,Hamilton-C1 的吸入剂量是 Airvo2 和 V60 Plus 的 2-3 倍。与其他设备相比,Vapotherm 的平均吸入剂量较低(0.9-2.5%)。在所有设备中,随着流量的增加,吸入剂量减少。
经鼻输送气溶胶受到 HFNC 设备类型和流量设置的显著影响。如果需要更换 HFNC 设备或流量,则需要调整名义剂量。