Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Top 10 Papers in 2020
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • Call for Abstracts 2021
    • 2020 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Portugûes
    • 国语

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Top 10 Papers in 2020
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • Call for Abstracts 2021
    • 2020 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Follow aarc on Twitter
  • Visit aarc on Facebook
EditorialEditorials

Nebulized Drug Delivery in Patients Breathing Spontaneously Through an Artificial Airway

Muhammad Mir and Rajiv Dhand
Respiratory Care July 2012, 57 (7) 1195-1196; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.01985
Muhammad Mir
Department of Medicine University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine Knoxville, Tennessee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rajiv Dhand
Department of Medicine University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine Knoxville, Tennessee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

During the past 25 years, incremental gains in knowledge about aerosol delivery to mechanically ventilated patients had a major impact on patient care in this setting. The complex array of factors influencing aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation made it difficult to elucidate the contribution of individual parameters to optimal aerosol delivery. Over the ensuing years, bench models made invaluable contributions in elucidating the effects of each variable on the efficiency of aerosol delivery and in determining methods to maximize drug deposition in the lung, despite the poor efficiency of aerosol-generating devices, the presence of a ventilator circuit and artificial airway, differing ventilator modes and ventilatory parameters, and in many clinical situations, the occurrence of severe lung disease in the patient.1

The artificial airway was long believed to be a serious obstacle to effective aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation. Impaction of aerosol on the endotracheal tube reduced the efficiency of lower airway delivery of drug, particularly in pediatric ventilator circuits (internal diameter of the artificial airway between 3 mm and 6 mm).2,3 However, nebulizer efficiency was not reduced with endotracheal tubes of internal diameter ≥ 7 mm.4 Earlier investigators may have overemphasized the impediments created by the artificial airway to aerosol delivery, probably because the aerosol generator was placed too close to the artificial airway. When the aerosol generator was placed at a distance from the endotracheal tube, instead of being directly connected to it, drug losses in the endotracheal tube were minimized and pulmonary deposition of aerosol was increased.4 Overall, in mechanically ventilated adults, the type of aerosol generator and the ventilatory parameters seemed to have a greater influence on aerosol deposition within the endotracheal tube than the diameter of the endotracheal tube per se.4

Critically ill patients in the ICU often require placement of an artificial airway to provide mechanical ventilation. In some situations (eg, during recovery from anesthesia or during weaning trials), patients may have an endotracheal tube while they are breathing spontaneously. Spontaneously breathing patients may also have tracheostomy tubes for extended periods while they are being weaned from the ventilator. Moreover, spontaneously breathing patients with chronic respiratory failure may require a tracheostomy tube, but no or periodic ventilator support, for a prolonged duration. Many such patients require aerosolized therapies, particularly inhaled bronchodilators, for relief of air-flow obstruction. In spontaneously breathing patients the efficiency of aerosol delivery is influenced by the drug output from the nebulizer, aerosol particle size, interface between the nebulizer and patient, and breathing pattern.5 Addition of an artificial airway in a spontaneously breathing patient adds another variable influencing aerosol deposition to the mix. Optimal methods for delivering aerosols in the setting of patients needing an artificial airway without ventilator support have not been well studied.

In this issue of the Journal, Ari and colleagues employed a bench model of spontaneous respiration to study the efficiency of aerosol delivery across artificial airways.6 These investigators employed an anatomical teaching manikin with both bronchi attached to a collecting filter, using a Y adapter. The manikin was intubated with either an endotracheal tube (8.0 mm internal diameter) or a tracheostomy tube of similar internal diameter. The model was attached to a sinusoidal pump that simulated the breathing pattern of a spontaneously breathing adult. The tracheostomy tube was tested with a tracheostomy collar, T-piece, or manual resuscitation bag, whereas only a T-piece and manual resuscitation bag were employed for testing with the endotracheal tube. After each nebulizer treatment the drug deposited on the filter was expressed as a percentage of the nominal dose placed in the nebulizer. Comparison of various interfaces showed that a T-piece provided twice as much aerosol as a tracheostomy collar. Likewise, Piccuito and Hess also found higher efficiency of aerosol delivery when a nebulizer was connected to a T-piece instead of a tracheostomy mask.7

Ari and co-workers observed that use of a manual resuscitation bag with either an endotracheal or tracheostomy tube was associated with a 3-fold increase of aerosol delivery, compared to the other interfaces.6 The investigators matched the number and timing of the breaths delivered with the manual resuscitation bag to an independently run breathing simulator. The higher aerosol delivery could be explained by the fact that the end of the tubing was capped when the manual resuscitation bag was employed, whereas when the other interfaces were employed, the tubing was open to the atmosphere and the breaths were generated by the spontaneous breathing simulator connected to the artificial airway. The relatively closed system model used in experiments with the manual resuscitation bag allowed the circuit to be charged with the drug. Higher drug deposition on the filter could be explained by the effects of nebulizer flow carrying the drug onto the filter. Because the nebulizer operated continuously, drug deposition on the filter could occur both during inspiration and expiration in a closed system, and this would lead to a higher value for drug deposition on the filter. In contrast, when a T-piece or tracheostomy collar was employed, most drug deposition on the filter would occur only during inspiration, and drug deposition on the filter would be proportionately lower.

Aerosol delivery through tracheostomy tubes has not been evaluated with the same degree of detail as with endotracheal tubes. Tracheostomy tubes are generally shorter and more curved than endotracheal tubes, and some of them have inner cannulae that reduce the inner diameter of the tube and could influence drug delivery. All of these variables determine the proportion of aerosol that deposits on the tube en route to the lung. Ari and colleagues found that a greater percentage of the nebulized dose was delivered with the tracheostomy tube than via the endotracheal tube.6 Previously, O'Riordan and colleagues determined that aerosol deposition in the tracheostomy tube was only 2.6% of the nebulizer output during inspiration and that there was not much difference with different tracheostomy tube sizes (between 6 and 10 mm).8 However, these investigators8 employed a specialty nebulizer that produces an aerosol with a finer particle size, compared to standard jet nebulizers, such as the one employed by Ari and co-workers.6

In spontaneously breathing patients, Ari and co-workers found that aerosol delivery with tracheostomy tubes was higher than with endotracheal tubes, and a T-piece connected to a nebulizer provided higher aerosol deposition than a tracheostomy collar.6 If even higher levels of aerosol deposition are required, such as in patients experiencing severe bronchoconstriction, a manual resuscitation bag connected to a T-piece could be connected to a tracheostomy tube. Capping one end of the T-piece could allow rapid delivery of higher drug amounts with a manual resuscitation bag. When drugs are administered by the manual resuscitation bag technique, patients would need appropriate monitoring for adverse side effects caused by rapid systemic absorption of larger amounts of drug delivered to the lung.

It is sobering to realize how little was known about aerosol delivery in the ICU setting only 25 years ago. The science of delivering aerosols in critically ill patients has made great strides since then, and carefully performed studies with models that simulate the clinical scenario have helped to improve techniques for aerosolized drug delivery. Bench models of mechanical ventilation played an important role in elucidating the optimal techniques of aerosol delivery and made a substantial impact on patient care in the ICU. The work of Ari and co-workers6 clarifies the effect of various interfaces on nebulizer efficiency and provides new information for treatment of a subset of intubated, spontaneously breathing patients.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Rajiv Dhand MD, Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, 1924 Alcoa Highway, U114, Knoxville TN 37922. E mail: rdhand{at}mc.utmck.edu.
  • The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

  • See the Original Study on Page 1066

  • Copyright © 2012 by Daedalus Enterprises Inc.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Tobin MJ
    1. Dhand R
    . Chapter 63 Bronchodilator therapy. In: Tobin MJ , editor. Principles and practice of mechanical ventilation. 3rd edition. New York: McGraw Hill; 2012.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Crogan SJ,
    2. Bishop MJ
    . Delivery efficiency of metered dose aerosols given via endotracheal tubes. Anesthesiology 1989;70(6):1008-1010.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Ahrens RC,
    2. Ries RA,
    3. Popendorf W
    . The delivery of therapeutic aerosols through endotracheal tubes. Pediatr Pulmonol 1986;2(1):19-26.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Dhand R
    . Special problems in aerosol delivery: artificial airways. Respir Care 2000;45(6):636-645.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Laube BL,
    2. Janssens HM,
    3. de Jongh FH
    . What the pulmonary specialist should know about the new inhalation therapies. Eur Respir J 2011;37(6):1308-1331.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Ari A,
    2. Harwood RJ,
    3. Sheard MM,
    4. Fink JB
    . An in vitro evaluation of aerosol delivery through tracheostomy and endotracheal tubes using different interfaces. Respir Care 2012;57(7):1066-1070.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Piccuito CM,
    2. Hess DR
    . Albuterol delivery via tracheostomy tube. Respir Care 2005;50(8):1071-1076.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. O'Riordan TG,
    2. Greco MJ,
    3. Perry RJ,
    4. Smaldone GC
    . Nebulizer function during mechanical ventilation. Am Rev Respir Dis 1992;145(5):1117-1122.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 57 (7)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 57, Issue 7
1 Jul 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Nebulized Drug Delivery in Patients Breathing Spontaneously Through an Artificial Airway
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Nebulized Drug Delivery in Patients Breathing Spontaneously Through an Artificial Airway
Muhammad Mir, Rajiv Dhand
Respiratory Care Jul 2012, 57 (7) 1195-1196; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.01985

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Nebulized Drug Delivery in Patients Breathing Spontaneously Through an Artificial Airway
Muhammad Mir, Rajiv Dhand
Respiratory Care Jul 2012, 57 (7) 1195-1196; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.01985
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board
  • Reprints/Permissions

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire