Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • 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
    • 2022 Open Forum
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • 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
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • 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
    • 2022 Open Forum
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
EditorialEditorials

Use of a Metered-Dose Inhaler Compared With a Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer During Mechanical Ventilation: Does It Really Matter?

Tim W Gilmore
Respiratory Care April 2017, 62 (4) 513-514; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.05464
Tim W Gilmore
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Allied Health Professions Shreveport, Louisiana
  • 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

Historically, the documentation of inhalation therapy dates back hundreds of years, although the formal study of aerosol and proliferation of applicable devices seemingly emerged circa the mid-twentieth century.1 Today, many options are available, and newer aerosol technologies are being used with some success. Studies have suggested that the pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) and jet-type nebulizer are essentially equal in the efficacy of delivering aerosol.2,3 There are still data lacking overall, however, relating to specific aerosol therapy delivery recommendations during mechanical ventilation.3–6 Furthermore, some of the newer nebulizer technologies, although promising, have yet to be studied in depth.7

Categorically, only a few options currently exist for delivering inhaled aerosolized medications to patients receiving mechanical ventilation, including pMDI and the jet, ultrasonic, or vibrating mesh nebulizer. Specifically, the newer vibrating mesh nebulizer was introduced within the last 2 decades and can be used as an alternative to the traditional jet- or ultrasonic-type nebulizer.3,8 There are no current definitive studies evaluating the more recently designed small-volume nebulizers (ie, vibrating mesh nebulizers), however, as a potential source of contamination and whether there is an increased risk for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) with their use. Although the pMDI remains a feasible alternative to traditional nebulization, the cost of certain pMDIs in hydrofluoroalkane formulation is high, causing many pharmacy departments to request that respiratory therapy departments find cheaper alternatives.

It has been proposed that aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation via pMDIs is preferred over nebulized delivery, based primarily on the idea that pMDIs are less likely to become contaminated, resulting in less incidence of VAP.9–12 In this issue of Respiratory Care, Dubosky et al13 compare the use of a pMDI with the use of a vibrating mesh nebulizer during mechanical ventilation. Their findings indicate there is no difference in VAP occurrence, ventilator days, or in-hospital mortality, between the use of a pMDI and a vibrating mesh nebulizer for medicated aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation.

Although the pMDI and nebulizer delivery systems remain the most commonly used modalities of inhalation therapy during mechanical ventilation,3 there are additional variables to consider, such as those affecting the deposition of aerosol during mechanical ventilation. This subject is one of ongoing study14 but beyond the scope of this editorial. VAP, nonetheless, is well known to be a significant cause of increased ICU length of stay and overall attributable mortality,15,16 and contaminated aerosol reservoirs have been identified in the past as a potential individual risk factor for the development of VAP.12,17,18 Current studies to establish whether contaminated medicated aerosol devices are a contributor to the development of VAP are lacking. The study by Dubosky et al13 suggests that there is no greater incidence of VAP and, therefore, no increase in ventilator days or mortality in a population receiving medicated aerosol via a vibrating mesh nebulizer compared with treatments delivered via a pMDI. The study by Dubosky et al13 did not specifically report ventilator-associated events.

Since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's convening of the VAP Surveillance Definition Working Group in 2011, there has been a recent shift away from concentrating on VAP alone to a more comprehensive evaluation of ventilator-associated events. This tiered approach to surveillance is changing the way that ICU patients are evaluated and treated with a more specific outcome predictability.19 Respiratory therapists especially should be aware of this ongoing development at the national level to utilize ventilator-associated event incidence in place of VAP incidence as a quality indicator for ICUs.20

Although the pMDI has been a longstanding means of delivering aerosol therapy to patients receiving mechanical ventilation, the vibrating mesh nebulizer may offer a viable, safe alternative for aerosolization of medications not available in pMDI form without the disadvantages often seen with the use of conventional jet nebulizers. The vibrating mesh nebulizer, unlike other traditional small-volume nebulizers, does not introduce additional flow into the circuit and can remain in the circuit on the dry side of the humidifier.14 The study by Dubosky et al13 suggests that the use of a vibrating mesh nebulizer during mechanical ventilation is an alternative to pMDI use without increasing the risk of VAP. Moreover, the vibrating mesh nebulizer in particular is designed such that its particle size is more consistent, less condensate develops within the circuit during treatments, and residual waste is negligible.8 Additionally, in analog models, the vibrating mesh nebulizer has been shown to be superior to the traditional jet nebulizer in the delivery of aerosol during mechanical ventilation.14

Although pMDI use remains common during mechanical ventilation, there is ongoing contention regarding the use of shared (common) canister protocol versus single canister therapy. Gowen et al21 found that common canister protocol does yield cost savings but may result in more ventilator-associated events. A study by Ari et al14 suggested that the use of a vibrating mesh nebulizer during mechanical ventilation was superior to the use of traditional jet nebulizer with a 2–4-fold greater drug delivery, but there may be significant variance among certain models of vibrating mesh nebulizers affecting the overall consistency of dosing.22 The outcome data provided by Dubosky et al13 suggest that the vibrating mesh nebulizer should be considered a safe option for the delivery of aerosol therapy during mechanical ventilation. Future studies are needed and should be ongoing to evaluate the latest nebulizers as their use is increased. As mechanical ventilation technology continues to progress, it is imperative that clinicians remain astute in providing aerosol therapy with the greatest fidelity, based upon sound evidence, and, as the costs of superior aerosol devices are driven lower, one might consider whether it is time to change the way “we've always done it.”

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Tim W Gilmore MHS RRT-NPS RRT-ACCS CPFT AE-C, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, School of Allied Health Professions, 1450 Claiborne Avenue, Shreveport, LA 71103. E-mail: tgilm1{at}lsuhsc.edu.
  • Mr Gilmore has disclosed no conflicts of interest.

  • See the Original Study on Page 391

  • Copyright © 2017 by Daedalus Enterprises

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Gandevia B
    . Historical review of the use of parasympatholytic agents in the treatment of respiratory disorders. Postgrad Med J 1975;51(7 Suppl):13–20.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Raimondi AC,
    2. Schottlender J,
    3. Lombardi D,
    4. Molfino NA
    . Treatment of acute severe asthma with inhaled albuterol delivered via jet nebulizer, metered dose inhaler with spacer, or dry powder. Chest 1997;112(1):24–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Ari A
    . Aerosol Therapy in Pulmonary Critical Care. Respir Care 2015;60(6):858–874; discussion 874-859.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.
    1. Ari A,
    2. Fink JB,
    3. Dhand R
    . Inhalation therapy in patients receiving mechanical ventilation: an update. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv 2012;25(6):319–332.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.
    1. Dhand R
    . Aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation: from basic techniques to new devices. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv 2008;21(1):45–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    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
  7. 7.↵
    1. Berlinski A
    . Assessing new technologies in aerosol medicine: strengths and limitations. Respir Care 2015;60(6):833–847; discussion 847-839.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Dhand R
    . Nebulizers that use a vibrating mesh or plate with multiple apertures to generate aerosol. Respir Care 2002;47(12):1406–1416; discussion 1416-1408.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Dhand R,
    2. Guntur VP
    . How best to deliver aerosol medications to mechanically ventilated patients. Clin Chest Med 2008;29(2):277–296, vi.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.
    1. Safdar N,
    2. Crnich CJ,
    3. Maki DG
    . The pathogenesis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: its relevance to developing effective strategies for prevention. Respir Care 2005;50(6):725–739; discussion 739-741.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.
    1. Hamill RJ,
    2. Houston ED,
    3. Georghiou PR,
    4. Wright CE,
    5. Koza MA,
    6. Cadle RM,
    7. et al
    . An outbreak of Burkholderia (formerly Pseudomonas) cepacia respiratory tract colonization and infection associated with nebulized albuterol therapy. Ann Intern Med 1995;122(10):762–766.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Hess DR,
    2. Kallstrom TJ,
    3. Mottram CD,
    4. Myers TR,
    5. Sorenson HM,
    6. Vines DL
    . Care of the ventilator circuit and its relation to ventilator-associated pneumonia. Respir Care 2003;48(9):869–879.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Dubosky M,
    2. Chen Y,
    3. Henricksen M,
    4. Vines D
    . Vibrating mesh nebulizer compared with metered-dose inhaler in mechanically ventilated patients. Respir Care 2017;62(4):391–395.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Ari A,
    2. Atalay OT,
    3. Harwood R,
    4. Sheard MM,
    5. Aljamhan EA,
    6. Fink JB
    . Influence of nebulizer type, position, and bias flow on aerosol drug delivery in simulated pediatric and adult lung models during mechanical ventilation. Respiratory care 2010;55(7):845–851.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Tejerina E,
    2. Frutos-Vivar F,
    3. Restrepo MI,
    4. Anzueto A,
    5. Abroug F,
    6. Palizas F,
    7. et al
    . Incidence, risk factors, and outcome of ventilator-associated pneumonia. J Crit Care 2006;21(1):56–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Melsen WG,
    2. Rovers MM,
    3. Groenwold RH,
    4. Bergmans DC,
    5. Camus C,
    6. Bauer TT,
    7. et al
    . Attributable mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised prevention studies. Lancet Infect Dis 2013;13(8):665–671.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Craven DE,
    2. Lichtenberg DA,
    3. Goularte TA,
    4. Make BJ,
    5. McCabe WR
    . Contaminated medication nebulizers in mechanical ventilator circuits: source of bacterial aerosols. Am J Med 1984;77(5):834–838.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Craven DE,
    2. Kunches LM,
    3. Kilinsky V,
    4. Lichtenberg DA,
    5. Make BJ,
    6. McCabe WR
    . Risk factors for pneumonia and fatality in patients receiving continuous mechanical ventilation. Am Rev Respir Dis 1986;133(5):792–796.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Magill SS,
    2. Klompas M,
    3. Balk R,
    4. Burns SM,
    5. Deutschman CS,
    6. Diekema D,
    7. et al
    . Developing a new, national approach to surveillance for ventilator-associated events. Am J Crit Care 2013;22(6):469–473.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Klompas M,
    2. Berra L
    . Should ventilator-associated events become a quality indicator for ICUs? Respir Care 2016;61(6):723–736.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Gowan M,
    2. Bushwitz J,
    3. Watts P,
    4. Silver PC,
    5. Jackson M,
    6. Hampton N,
    7. Kollef MH
    . Use of a shared canister protocol for the delivery of metered-dose inhalers in mechanically ventilated subjects. Respir Care 2016;61(10):1285–1292.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Gowda AA,
    2. Cuccia AD,
    3. Smaldone GC
    . Reliability of vibrating mesh technology. Respir Care 2017;62(1):65–69.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 62 (4)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 62, Issue 4
1 Apr 2017
  • 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.
Use of a Metered-Dose Inhaler Compared With a Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer During Mechanical Ventilation: Does It Really Matter?
(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
Use of a Metered-Dose Inhaler Compared With a Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer During Mechanical Ventilation: Does It Really Matter?
Tim W Gilmore
Respiratory Care Apr 2017, 62 (4) 513-514; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.05464

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Use of a Metered-Dose Inhaler Compared With a Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer During Mechanical Ventilation: Does It Really Matter?
Tim W Gilmore
Respiratory Care Apr 2017, 62 (4) 513-514; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.05464
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
  • 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