Aerosol Delivery to Simulated Spontaneously Breathing Tracheostomized Adult Model With and Without Humidification

BACKGROUND: Optimal aerosol delivery methods for spontaneously breathing patients with a tracheostomy remain unclear. Thus, we aimed to assess the impact of nebulizer placement, flow settings, and interfaces on aerosol delivery by using a vibrating mesh nebulizer and a jet nebulizer in line with unheated humidification.

METHODS: An 8.0-mm tracheostomy tube was connected to the lung model that simulates adult breathing parameters via a collecting filter. Albuterol sulfate (2.5 mg/3 mL) was administered via a vibrating mesh nebulizer and a jet nebulizer, which was placed in line with unheated humidification provided by a large-volume nebulizer, with F_IO2 set at 0.28, with gas flows of 2 L/min versus 6 L/min. Nebulizers were placed in line distal and proximal to the lung model by using a tracheostomy collar and a T-piece. Conventional nebulization was tested using a vibrating mesh nebulizer and a jet nebulizer directly connected to the tracheostomy tube bypassing the humidification device. The drug was eluted from the collecting filter and assayed with ultraviolet spectrophotometry (276 nm).

RESULTS: During in-line nebulizer placement with unheated humidification, the inhaled dose was 2–4 times higher with a gas flow of 2 L/min than 6 L/min, regardless of nebulizer type, placement, or interface (all P < .05). At 6 L/min, the inhaled dose was higher with proximal than distal placement when using both interfaces, but, at 2 L/min, the inhaled dose was lower with proximal placement. With a jet nebulizer, the tracheostomy collar generated a higher inhaled dose at proximal placement compared with the T-piece, whereas the T-piece resulted in a higher inhaled dose than the tracheostomy collar with distal placement, regardless of the flow settings. Compared with conventional nebulization using a vibrating mesh nebulizer, an in-line vibrating mesh nebulizer with a large-volume nebulizer at 2 L/min had a similar inhaled dose, regardless of nebulizer placement and interface. In contrast, the in-line jet nebulizer was influenced by both placement and interface.

CONCLUSIONS: Aerosol delivery with an in-line vibrating mesh nebulizer and jet nebulizer with unheated humidification was affected by nebulizer placement, interface, and gas flow settings.