Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2023 Open Forum
    • 2023 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • The Journal

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
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2023 Open Forum
    • 2023 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
EditorialEditorials

Comparison of Aerosol Delivery by Face Mask and Tracheostomy Collar

Thomas C Blakeman
Respiratory Care September 2015, 60 (9) 1365-1366; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.04345
Thomas C Blakeman
Division of Trauma and Critical Care Department of Surgery University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio
MSc RRT
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

In this issue of Respiratory Care, Bugis et al1 evaluated which of 3 interfaces (tracheostomy collar, Wright mask, or face mask) provided better delivery of aerosol medication distal to the bronchi through a tracheostomy tube (TT) in a laboratory model. Although all respiratory therapists are familiar with the tracheostomy collar and face mask, the Wright mask may not be as well known. The Wright mask is a combination of a tracheostomy collar and face mask molded into one device that covers both the nose and mouth, as well as the tracheostomy. Each interface was tested using a breathing simulator at a breathing frequency of 20 breaths/min, tidal volume (VT) of 400 mL, and inspiratory-expiratory ratios of 1:2 and 2:1 via a cuffed and fenestrated 8-mm TT with the cuff deflated. A jet nebulizer was used to nebulize albuterol, and the aerosol output was captured distal to the bronchi in a filter and measured. The authors found that the tracheostomy collar delivered the largest dose of albuterol distal to the bronchi with the fenestration closed at an inspiratory-expiratory ratio of 2:1 compared with the other interfaces under the same conditions.

Jet nebulizers are the oldest aerosol-generating devices still in use. These devices are versatile due to the ability to deliver many different medications; can be used for unconscious and ventilated adult, pediatric, and infant patients; and do not require coordination for patients to activate and inhale as with metered-dose inhalers. Aerosol deposition into the lungs has been well studied over the past several decades,2–4 and the mechanisms are well known. Aerosol deposition is influenced by many factors, such as particle size, electrostatic charge, hygroscopicity, airway geometry, disease state, and breathing pattern. Airway models have been developed as a surrogate for studying aerosol deposition in the human airway.5,6 Breathing pattern is known to have a significant effect on aerosol deposition. In a combined human/laboratory model, Brand et al7 reported that subjects breathing via a mouthpiece at a very slow flow had significantly greater deposition than at higher flows, although inter- and intra-subject flows varied by as much as 22%. Aerosol delivery via a face mask has been studied in the laboratory, but mainly in infant/pediatric models.8,9 These studies showed that mask design, flow, and breathing pattern each independently had an effect on aerosol deposition.

How to best deliver aerosol medications to mechanically ventilated patients has been extensively discussed and researched since the study by MacIntyre et al,10 who showed that aerosol medication delivery during mechanical ventilation was much less compared with that in spontaneously breathing subjects. Factors that affect aerosol deposition in mechanically ventilated patients have been somewhat controversial and multifactorial. Dhand and Guntur11 reviewed the available literature on the differences in aerosol deposition between mechanically ventilated and spontaneously breathing subjects. Many possible causes were identified, including, but not limited to, patient positioning, ventilator modes, inspiratory flow and pattern, humidity, temperature, and delivery method (such as through an artificial airway versus a native airway).

Several studies have evaluated aerosol deposition through TTs, but Bugis et al1 are the first to evaluate uncuffed TTs and subsequently test a modified mask to administer aerosol simultaneously through the TT and mouth/nose. MacIntyre12 performed a review of the published studies of aerosol deposition to date and found a wide range of deposition rates ranging from 1.2 to 43%. These studies were heterogeneous in that both TTs and endotracheal tubes, different jet nebulizers, and different models were used. On the basis of the available evidence, MacIntyre12 stated that the ideal aerosol delivery system would have patient-triggered breathing with a slow, long inspiratory time, an end-inspiratory pause, and a large VT. The carrier gas should be unhumidified using a nebulizer with high output, generating particle sizes of 1–3 μm.

Bugis et al1 found that a main contributing factor in aerosol deposition was an inspiratory-expiratory ratio of 2:1, which confirmed the results of Diot et al,13 who showed that long inspiratory times and lack of humidity were major contributing factors in aerosol deposition. Bugis et al1used one VT and breathing pattern, which they considered to be a limitation. The effect of larger VT on aerosol deposition has been previously confirmed as a contributor to aerosol deposition, but only to a point. Once the reservoir (tracheostomy mask in the study by Diot et al13) is depleted of aerosol with increasing VT, the amount of aerosol entering the airway is decreased in a linear fashion when air entrainment begins,14 much like the effect of the Wright mask in the study by Bugis et al.1 Although the breathing pattern could not be altered with the simulator, the use of different VT values would have indicated where in the VT range aerosol deposition begins to decrease.

In the study by Bugis et al,1 only an 8-mm TT was used. Using different size TTs may affect the deposition rate using the Wright mask because a smaller TT would provide greater inspiratory resistance, allowing more of the available aerosol to enter the trachea via the upper airway. Conversely, a larger TT may allow greater deposition. Pitance et al15 observed a decrease in aerosol deposition in a laboratory model with smaller TTs using both a T-piece and tracheostomy collar. The authors also noted that removal of the inner cannula resulted in a statistically significant increase (3.7–31.3%, P < .002) in aerosol deposition distal to the bronchi in their model. Additionally, they found that the mean particle diameter produced by the nebulizer used in their study ranged from 3.3 to 3.8 μm, whereas nebulizers used in a similar study conducted by O'Riordan et al16 produced particles 1.1 ± 1.8 μm in diameter. The particle size generated by the nebulizer used by Bugis et al1 was not indicated, but different nebulizer brands and even nebulizers within the same brand may produce different particle sizes, which could have affected the results of the study. These differences should be considered during clinical practice. An interesting addition to the study by Bugis et al1 would have been to compare aerosol deposition via a T-piece using their model. Studies have confirmed that the greatest aerosol deposition through TTs was achieved with this delivery method.17,18

Bugis et al1 showed that, somewhat surprisingly, the Wright mask did not provide the greatest aerosol deposition in their model. This is an important finding in that the method used by many clinicians to administer nebulizers to non-mechanically ventilated patients with TTs (via a tracheostomy collar) produced the best results. Sometimes the simplest way is the best, particularly in this model. Although this study was well done and the results may be translatable to clinical care, the study used a limited set of variables. Future studies with this same model should evaluate other variables not included in this study, such as different size cuffed and uncuffed TTs with and without inner cannulas, different nebulizer brands, and the use of a T-piece to deliver nebulized aerosol. Such work may help to identify the variables or combination of variables that have the greatest effect on aerosol deposition in this tracheostomy model.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Thomas C Blakeman MSc RRT, Division of Trauma and Critical Care, Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati, 231 Albert Sabin Way, Cincinnati, OH 45267-0558. E-mail: thomas.blakeman{at}uc.edu.
  • Mr Blakeman has disclosed no conflicts of interest.

  • See the Original Study on Page 1215 and 1220

  • Copyright © 2015 by Daedalus Enterprises

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Bugis AA,
    2. Sheard MM,
    3. Fink JB,
    4. Harwood RJ,
    5. Ari A
    . Comparison of aerosol delivery by face mask and tracheostomy collar. Respir Care 2015;60(9):1220–1226.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    ICRP. Human respiratory tract model for radiological protection. A report of a Task Group of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 1994;24(1–3)1–482.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.
    NCRP. Deposition, retention, and dosimetry of inhaled radioactive substances. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements; 1997; NCRP Report No. 125.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Dalby R,
    2. Byron PR,
    3. Farr SJ,
    4. Peart J
    1. Price A
    . Validation of aerosol deposition models for pharmaceutical purposes: the way forward. In: Dalby R, Byron PR, Farr SJ, Peart J, editors. Respiratory drug delivery VII. Buffalo Grove, IL: Interpharm Press; 2000:197–208.
  5. 5.↵
    1. Gradon L,
    2. Marijnissen J
    1. Cheng YS
    . Modeling aerosol drug delivery. In: Gradon L, Marijnissen J, editors. Optimization of aerosol drug delivery. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer; 2003:165–188.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Cheng YS
    . Mechanisms of pharmaceutical aerosol deposition in the respiratory tract. AAPS PharmSci Tech 2014;15(3):630–640.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Brand P,
    2. Friemel I,
    3. Meyer T,
    4. Schulz H,
    5. Heyder J,
    6. Häubetainger K
    . Total deposition of therapeutic particles during spontaneous and controlled inhalations. J Pharm Sci 2000;89(6):724–731.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Lin H-L,
    2. Harwood RJ,
    3. Fink JB,
    4. Goodfellow LT,
    5. Ari A
    . In vitro comparison of aerosol delivery using different face masks and flow rates with a high-flow humidity system. Respir Care 2015;60(9):1215–1219.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Lin H-L,
    2. Restrepo RD,
    3. Gardenhire DS,
    4. Rau JL
    . Effect of face mask design on inhaled mass of nebulized albuterol, using a pediatric breathing model. Respir Care 2007;52(8):1021–1026.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. MacIntyre NR,
    2. Silver RM,
    3. Miller CW,
    4. Schuler F,
    5. Coleman RE
    . Aerosol delivery in intubated, mechanically ventilated patients. Crit Care Med 1985;13(2):81–84.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Dhand R,
    2. Guntur VP
    . How to best deliver aerosol medications to mechanically ventilated patients. Clin Chest Med 2008;29(2):277–296.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. MacIntyre NR
    . Aerosol delivery through an artificial airway. Respir Care 2002;47(11):1279–1285; discussion 1285-1289.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Diot P,
    2. Morra L,
    3. Smaldone GC
    . Albuterol delivery in a model of mechanical ventilation: comparison of metered dose inhaler and nebulizer efficiency. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995;152(4):1391–1394.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Everard ML,
    2. Clark AR,
    3. Milner AD
    . Drug delivery from jet nebulisers. Arch Dis Child 1992;67(5):586–591.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Pitance L,
    2. Vecellio L,
    3. Delval G,
    4. Reychler G,
    5. Reychler H,
    6. Liistro G
    . Aerosol delivery through tracheostomy tubes: an in vitro study. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv 2013;26(2):76–83.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. O'Riordan TG,
    2. Palmer LB,
    3. Smaldone GC
    . Aerosol deposition in mechanically ventilated patients. Optimizing nebulizer delivery. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994;149(1):214–219.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    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
  18. 18.↵
    1. Piccuito CM,
    2. Hess DR
    . Albuterol delivery via tracheostomy tube. Respir Care 2005;50(8):1071–1076.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 60 (9)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 60, Issue 9
1 Sep 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Monthly Podcast

 

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.
Comparison of Aerosol Delivery by Face Mask and Tracheostomy Collar
(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
Comparison of Aerosol Delivery by Face Mask and Tracheostomy Collar
Thomas C Blakeman
Respiratory Care Sep 2015, 60 (9) 1365-1366; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.04345

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Comparison of Aerosol Delivery by Face Mask and Tracheostomy Collar
Thomas C Blakeman
Respiratory Care Sep 2015, 60 (9) 1365-1366; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.04345
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 the Journal
  • Editorial Board

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