Vibrating Membrane Devices Deliver Aerosols More Efficient than Standard Devices: A Study in a Neonatal Upper Airway Model

Tiemersma, Sybrich; Minocchieri, Stefan; Lingen, Richard A. van; Nelle, Mathias; Devadason, Sunalene G.

doi:10.1089/jamp.2012.0993

Cited by 26 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are in contrast to those of Tiemersma et al, 30 who studied aerosol delivery via jet and vibrating mesh nebulizers using an anatomically correct model of a premature infant. We speculate that the difference between both studies could be multifactorial.…”

Section: Interfacescontrasting

confidence: 96%

“…In our study, we used an anatomically correct model of the face and airways, and the lung dose corresponded to the drug captured at the level of the carina, whereas in their study, the drug was captured behind the mouth, and a higher V T was used. Tiemersma et al 30 compared jet nebulizer and vibrating mesh nebulizers in a premature infant nose/throat model. Lung dose was 1.5% and 18 -20.6% for jet nebulizer and vibrating mesh nebulizers, respectively.…”

Section: Delivery Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…11,[26][27][28] Because infants and young children are obligate nose breathers, studies utilizing the nasal route for aerosol delivery are of importance. [29][30][31] Recently, Amirav et al 31 reported that nasal breathing resulted in larger lung deposition than mouth breathing in an in vivo study using airway replicas of 5-, 14-, and 20-month-old infants and toddlers. The authors showed a different response depending on the size of the airway models, with significantly higher aerosol delivery to the lower respiratory tract via the nasal route in comparison with the oral route in small and medium airway replicas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

In Vitro Evaluation of Aerosols Delivered via the Nasal Route

Taoum

Kim

et al. 2015

Respir Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Infants and young children are obligate nose breathers; therefore, a transnasal route seems the logical delivery method of inhaled aerosols. The efficiency of aerosol delivery depends on several factors, such as interface, type of nebulizer, and patient age and breathing pattern. We hypothesized that the use of a vibrating mesh nebulizer, a tight-fitting face mask, and a head model and breathing pattern of an older child would result in a higher lung dose. We also hypothesized that the use of an anatomically correct model would more accurately reflect lung dose than models that do not include airways. METHODS: A model comprising a breathing simulator and an anatomically correct model of a 7-month-old infant and a 5-y-old child with an interposed collection filter (lung dose) were used. Breathing patterns of a newborn, infant, and child were used with 7 interfaces. A continuous output and a vibrating mesh nebulizer were loaded with albuterol sulfate solution (5 mg/3.5 mL) and operated for 5 min. Albuterol mass was determined via spectrophotometer (276 nm). RESULTS: Lung dose varied between 0 and 3%. The jet nebulizer was more efficient than the vibrating mesh nebulizer. The front-loaded mask was the most efficient interface. We also found that higher tidal volumes were associated with higher lung doses and that the use of a larger airway model resulted in a lower lung dose. Finally, the model showed a good correlation with in vivo data and rendered lung doses severalfold lower than previous data obtained with oral models. CONCLUSIONS: Careful pairing of the aerosol generator and interface is very important during transnasal aerosol delivery.

show abstract

Section: Interfacescontrasting

confidence: 96%

Section: Delivery Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In Vitro Evaluation of Aerosols Delivered via the Nasal Route

Taoum

Kim

et al. 2015

Respir Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…20 In some cases, residual loss can account for nearly 50 -75% of the drug placed in the nebulizer. 21,22 Moreover, there are differences in drug delivery related to nebulizer flow and gas composition and whether the device is being powered by a compressor or pressurized gas source. 23 Integrating jet nebulizers into a ventilator circuit or respiratory support device may inadvertently increase pressure and volume and affect triggering due to the additional flow.…”

Section: Aerosol Device Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Controversies in Aerosol Therapy for Infants and Children

DiBlasi

2015

Respir Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pediatric patients are different from adult patients with respect to airway anatomy and breathing patterns. They are also incapable of following commands and often reject breathing treatments. For these reasons, aerosol drug delivery is one of the most technically challenging aspects for clinicians providing respiratory care to young children. Improvements in nebulizer technology have provided better delivery options for pediatric patients. This review highlights research related to pediatric nebulizer and interface devices and how they can be used to provide the safest and most efficient treatments with the array of treatment delivery options. Also addressed are clinical controversies and debates in pediatric aerosol science, including drug delivery in crying versus resting infants, pressurized metered-dose inhalers and small-volume nebulizers for bronchodilator administration, continuous nebulization, noninvasive drug delivery options, and optimization of nebulizer performance during infant and large pediatric conventional and high-frequency ventilation.

show abstract

“…Several of the antibiotics were administered in their raw form or as a novel compound in order to enhance the absorption [2]. The different methods of the aerosol administration can be found on Table 1 [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. The drugs have been administered for pulmonary infections in several conditions such as; pneumonia, cystic fibrosis and bronchiectasis.…”

Section: Antibioticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drug development of Lung Diseases by way of Drug Repurposing; What a Pulmonary Physician can do in the Laboratory

Tsiouda¹,

Hohenforst-Schmidt²,

Sardeli³

et al. 2018

J. Biomed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lung diseases are very common among several patients such as; asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, cystic fibrosis and pulmonary fibrosis. In many of these diseases we already have inhalation therapies, however; for others we have only systematic administration. There are also diseases of the lung that cause pulmonary hypertension and architectural damage to the lung such as; emphysema and bronchiectasis. Several of the drugs currently administered intravenously are being investigated whether they could be transformed and delivered as aerosol therapy. We will present the methodology that can be used and has been used for several drugs.

show abstract

Vibrating Membrane Devices Deliver Aerosols More Efficient than Standard Devices: A Study in a Neonatal Upper Airway Model

Cited by 26 publications

References 20 publications

In Vitro Evaluation of Aerosols Delivered via the Nasal Route

In Vitro Evaluation of Aerosols Delivered via the Nasal Route

Clinical Controversies in Aerosol Therapy for Infants and Children

Drug development of Lung Diseases by way of Drug Repurposing; What a Pulmonary Physician can do in the Laboratory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About