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 Call for Abstracts
    • 2022 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
    • 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 Call for Abstracts
    • 2022 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Variations in the Efficiency of Albuterol Delivery and Intrapulmonary Effects With Differential Parameter Settings on Intrapulmonary Percussive Ventilation

Takashi Karashima, Yuka Mimura-Kimura, Kanade Miyakawa, Akihiro Nakamura, Fuminori Shimahara, Haruhito Kamei and Yusuke Mimura
Respiratory Care May 2019, 64 (5) 502-508; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.06348
Takashi Karashima
Department of Medical Engineering, National Hospital Organization Yamaguchi-Ube Medical Center, Ube, Japan.
Department of Clinical Research, National Hospital Organization Yamaguchi-Ube Medical Center, Ube, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yuka Mimura-Kimura
Department of Clinical Research, National Hospital Organization Yamaguchi-Ube Medical Center, Ube, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kanade Miyakawa
Department of Medical Engineering, National Hospital Organization Yamaguchi-Ube Medical Center, Ube, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Akihiro Nakamura
Department of Medical Engineering, National Hospital Organization Yamaguchi-Ube Medical Center, Ube, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fuminori Shimahara
Department of Medical Engineering, National Hospital Organization Yamaguchi-Ube Medical Center, Ube, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Haruhito Kamei
Department of Clinical Research, National Hospital Organization Yamaguchi-Ube Medical Center, Ube, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yusuke Mimura
Department of Clinical Research, National Hospital Organization Yamaguchi-Ube Medical Center, Ube, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (IPV) is used for airway clearance and delivery of aerosol medications, including bronchodilators. Despite the common use of IPV for drug delivery, few data are available regarding optimization of inhalation therapy with IPV. In this study, we investigated the influence of IPV setting parameters and lung mechanics on drug delivery via IPV alone.

METHODS: An IPV device was connected to a lung model via a trachea model and a flow analyzer. Albuterol nebulized from the IPV device was collected onto a filter attached between the trachea and lung models, and was quantitated by spectrophotometry (230 nm).

RESULTS: Albuterol delivery to the lung model was increased up to 2.1-fold, with decreasing percussion frequency. Decreasing percussion frequency concomitantly increased the tidal volume, and albuterol delivery was correlated with tidal volume (r = 0.91, P < .001). Airway resistance had a negative impact on albuterol delivery, whereas lung compliance had no significant effect. Increasing operational pressure increased albuterol delivery while increasing peak inspiratory pressure.

CONCLUSIONS: Albuterol delivery and tidal volume with IPV can be improved by maintaining low levels of percussion frequency and increasing operational pressure. When increasing operational pressure, the peak inspiratory pressure and airway resistance levels need to be carefully monitored for safe inhalation therapy with IPV.

  • intrapulmonary percussive ventilation
  • albuterol
  • drug delivery

Introduction

Intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (IPV) is high-frequency percussive ventilation that delivers small bursts of gas into the lungs for airway clearance.1 IPV can provide both ventilation and delivery of nebulized drugs simultaneously by its unique ventilation system.2 IPV is used in both children and adults for various diseases, including COPD,3–6 Duchenne muscular dystrophy,7 bronchiectasis,8 and cystic fibrosis.9,10 Therefore, IPV treatments need to be tailored for individual patients with differing respiratory conditions and clinical states. Although some intrapulmonary effects of setting parameters in IPV devices have been reported,11 it remains unknown how IPV parameters should be configured for optimal drug delivery in patients with different lung mechanics, including compliance (lung compliance [CL]) and airway resistance (Raw). Previously, drug delivery with IPV has only been investigated at a constant pressure and frequency12 or in a mechanical ventilator circuit.13 In clinical practice, however, drug delivery can be performed via IPV alone in patients without spontaneous breathing,14,15 and drug delivery optimization is not well understood.

In this study, we investigated the impact of alterations in the settings of the parameters of IPV (frequency and operational pressure) and lung mechanics (CL and Raw) on the efficiency of drug delivery and intrapulmonary effects. This in vitro study simulated the situation of patients on mechanical ventilation who received nebulized medication via IPV alone, with mechanical ventilation being withheld during IPV. Increased drug delivery and concomitant changes in the intrapulmonary effects with differing IPV parameter settings and lung mechanics provide insights into improved aerosol inhalation therapy with IPV in patients without spontaneous breathing.

QUICK LOOK

Current knowledge

Albuterol can be delivered via intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (IPV) in both patients who are spontaneously breathing and patients on mechanical ventilation. However, variations in the efficiency of drug delivery with differing IPV parameter settings and lung mechanics may impact patient response.

What this paper contributes to our knowledge

Albuterol delivery via IPV was increased with decreasing frequency and increasing operational pressure but was decreased at high airway resistance, irrespective of lung compliance. These IPV settings that improved albuterol delivery concomitantly increased tidal volume. Because peak inspiratory pressure markedly increased with increasing operational pressure at high airway resistance, careful monitoring is important to avoid lung injury.

Methods

Nebulization of Albuterol With IPV

An IPV device (IPV-1C, A50007–1, A50010–3, Percussionaire, Sandpoint, Idaho) was connected to a trachea model (condenser tube, 20 mm × 30 cm, Percussionaire), FlowAnalyser (PF-300, IMT Medical, Buchs, Switzerland), and a lung model (Model 1600, Dual Adult TTL, Michigan Instruments, Grand Rapids, Michigan) (Fig. 1). A cuffed endotracheal tube (ETT) (8.0 mm × 36 cm) (TaperGuard, Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) was placed to connect the sliding venturi (Percussionaire) to the trachea model with 25 cm H2O of cuff pressure (Fig. 1). One mL of albuterol solution (0.5% Ventolin, GlaxoSmithKline, London, United Kingdom) was diluted with 10 mL of saline solution and nebulized from the IPV device toward the lung model for 15 min.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Diagram of experimental setup for albuterol delivery with intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (IPV) and the positions of the filters for collection of albuterol. A: At the distal end of the trachea model. B: At the proximal end of the ETT. C: At the ventilator. ETT = endotracheal tube, N = nebulizer.

Configuration parameters of the IPV device were 20 or 40 psi of operational pressure and fully “easy” or “hard” mode of percussion. The easy and hard percussion settings correspond to frequencies of 300 and 100 cycles/min, respectively. The pulse/interval ratio setting was 1:2.5. The conditions of the lung model used were 20 or 100 mL/cm H2O of CL and 5 or 50 cm H2O/L/s of Raw. A filter in a cartridge housing (Inspiratory/Expiratory Breathing Circuit Filters, RT019, Fisher and Paykel, Auckland, New Zealand) to capture albuterol was placed between the trachea model and the FlowAnalyser, separated from the tip of the ETT by 2 cm (Filter A) (Fig. 1). The FlowAnalyser measured peak inspiratory flow, peak expiratory flow, PEEP, peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), and tidal volume (VT). These intrapulmonary effects were measured in triplicate 1 min after the start of IPV. To examine any deposition of albuterol outside the lung model, 2 additional filters were attached at the proximal end of the ETT (Filter B) and the ventilator of the sliding venturi (Filter C) (Fig. 1).

Measurement of Albuterol

All the albuterol solution was completely nebulized from the IPV device within 15 min of operation, and the filter cartridge was immediately removed from the circuit. The filter was immersed in 2 mL of 100% ethanol in a 15-mL Falcon tube (Corning, Corning, New York) and centrifuged at 200g for 10 min after elution with agitation for 2–3 h. The albuterol concentration (μg/mL) was determined at 230 nm with an ND-100 spectrophotometer (NanoDrop Technologies, Wilmington, Delaware)13,16 by using a standard curve of albuterol dissolved in ethanol. The minimum measurable concentration was 8 μg/mL. The efficiency of albuterol delivery was estimated as the following: percentage efficiency = (the amount of albuterol captured in a filter [μg]/5,000) × 100.

Rationale for Parameter Settings of the Lung Model

The Raw and CL values of healthy individuals are <5 cm H2O/L/s and >80 mL/cm H2O, respectively.17,18 In 24 subjects on ventilation and with pulmonary edema and chronic airway obstruction, Raw ranged from 8.0 ± 4.6 to 26.4 ± 13.4 cm H2O/L/s and CL was from 35 ± 5 to 66 ± 20 mL/cm H2O on day 1 from the onset of mechanical ventilation, and there was a subject who showed > 50 cm H2O/L/s of Raw due to obstructive lung disease.19 Another in vivo study showed that 13 subjects on ventilation and with acute lung injury had 7.2–17.2 cm H2O/L/s of Raw and 26.3–102 mL/cm H2O of CL.20 Hence, we mimicked these subjects on ventilation and with target symptoms for IPV therapy and configured the parameters of the lung model. The normal pulmonary conditions to simulate healthy lungs were 5 cm H2O/L/s of Raw and 100 mL/cm H2O of CL, whereas diseased pulmonary conditions 50 cm H2O/L/s of Raw and/or 20 mL/cm H2O of CL.

Statistical Analysis

Parameters were set in 16 combinations of frequency (easy vs hard mode) and operational pressure (20 vs 40 psi) in the IPV device, and CL (20 vs 100 cm H2O/mL) and Raw (5 vs 50 cm H2O/L/s) in the lung model. The amounts of albuterol deposited onto filters were measured in triplicate in these 16 combinations, and the 2-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to assess whether the amounts of albuterol delivered were changed between 2 different settings of each parameter. The correlation between VT and the amounts of albuterol deposited onto filters was evaluated by the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. All statistical analyses were conducted by using SPSS version 25.0 (IBM, Armonk, New York), and P values < .05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Albuterol delivery and intrapulmonary effects in 16 combinations of frequency and operational pressure in the IPV device and Raw and CL in the lung model were determined as follows.

Albuterol Delivery Via IPV

The amounts of albuterol in the eluates of the filters (Filter A) (Fig. 1) ranged from 23.7 to 102 μg (Fig. 2), which corresponded to 0.5–2.0% of the initial dose (5 mg) of albuterol nebulized from the IPV device. The parameters that achieved the maximum albuterol delivery were 40 psi of operational pressure and the hard mode of percussion under the normal pulmonary conditions of the lung model, that is, 5 cm H2O/L/s of Raw and 100 mL/cm H2O of CL. In contrast, the lowest albuterol delivery was observed at 20 psi, easy mode, and 50 cm H2O/L/s of Raw, irrespective of CL (Fig. 2D). Under the normal pulmonary conditions, 140 μg of albuterol (2.8% of the initial dose) was captured at proximal end of the ETT (Filter B) (Fig. 1) and 760.8 μg (15.2% of the initial dose) at the ventilator of the sliding venturi (Filter C) (Fig. 1). Therefore, these results indicated that the amounts of albuterol delivered to the ETT by the intake flow were ∼5 times lower than that removed from the ventilator by the counterflow.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Effect of intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (IPV) parameters and lung mechanics on albuterol delivery. The amounts of albuterol were compared between 2 different conditions of each parameter by using the 2-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A: Frequency (easy or hard). B: Operational pressure (20 or 40 psi). C: Airway resistance (Raw) (5 or 50 cm H2O/L/s). D: Lung compliance (CL) (20 or 100 mL/cm H2O).

Intrapulmonary Effects

VT.

VT ranged from 27 to 341 mL. As previously reported,11 increasing operational pressure and decreasing frequencies increased VT (Fig. 3A). VT was also increased with decreasing Raw, irrespective of CL. VT was >200 mL at the hard mode and 5 cm H2O/L/s of Raw, even at 20 psi of operational pressure. The largest VT value was observed at the hard mode, 40 psi of operational pressure and 5 cm H2O/L/s of Raw, whereas the lowest VT value was at the easy mode, 20 psi of operational pressure and 50 cm H2O/L/s of Raw.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Intrapulmonary effects of intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (IPV) parameters and lung mechanics. A: Tidal volume (VT). B: Peak inspiratory pressure (PIP). C: PEEP. D: Peak inspiratory flow (PIF). E: Peak expiratory flow (PEF). OP = operational pressure (20 or 40 psi); Raw = airway resistance (5 or 50 cm H2O/L/s); CL = lung compliance (20 or 100 mL/cm H2O). The error bars represent SD of 3 independent experiments.

PIP.

PIP ranged from 15.6 to 95.8 cm H2O (Fig. 3B). PIP was increased with increasing operational pressure and Raw, irrespective of CL, and was shown to be >30 cm H2O at 50 cm H2O/L/s of Raw. The frequency had a marginal effect on PIP. The lowest PIP value was observed at 20 psi of operational pressure under normal pulmonary conditions. The highest PIP value was at the hard mode, 40 psi of operational pressure and 50 cm H2O/L/s of Raw.

PEEP.

PEEP ranged from 2.2 to 10.9 cm H2O (Fig. 3C). PEEP was increased with the easy mode and increased operational pressure. The highest PEEP value was at the easy mode and 40 psi of operational pressure under the normal pulmonary conditions. The lowest PEEP value was at the hard mode, 20 psi of operational pressure and 50 cm H2O/L/s of Raw and 100 mL/cm H2O of CL.

Peak Inspiratory Flow.

The highest positive value of pulse flow during inspiration (see supplementary Fig. 1 at http://www.rcjournal.com), peak inspiratory flow, ranged from 34.8 to 131.0 L/min (Fig. 3D). Peak inspiratory flow was increased with increasing operational pressure and decreasing Raw, irrespective of CL. The maximum peak inspiratory flow was observed at the hard mode and 40 psi of operational pressure under the normal pulmonary conditions. The minimum levels were at the easy mode, 20 psi of operational pressure and 50 cm H2O/L/s of Raw.

Peak Expiratory Flow.

The lowest negative value of pulse flow (supplementary Fig. 1 at http://www.rcjournal.com), peak expiratory flow, ranged from −68.3 to −17.6 L/min (Fig. 3E). The extent of the peak expiratory flow was increased with increasing operational pressure and decreasing Raw, as observed for peak inspiratory flow (Fig. 3D).

Discussion

Drug delivery via IPV is commonly performed in patients on mechanical ventilation, although the influence of IPV setting parameters on drug delivery has not been well understood. It also remains unclear how differing lung mechanics influence the efficacy of the IPV treatment. To our knowledge, this study was the first to show variations in the efficiency of drug delivery and intrapulmonary effects with differential IPV parameter settings and lung mechanics.

The maximum amount of albuterol (∼100 μg, 2% of the initial dose) was delivered at the hard mode of frequency (∼100 cycles/min) under the normal pulmonary conditions of the lung model, which was ∼2 times greater than that at the easy mode (∼300 cycles/min). With decreasing frequency from the easy to hard mode, the entrainment of gas from the nebulizer by the sliding venturi improved, which accounted for the increase in albuterol delivery (Fig. 2A) and VT (Fig. 3A; supplementary Fig. 2 at http://www.rcjournal.com). The relationship of VT with frequency was consistent with the Toussaint et al study.11 Increasing operational pressure also increased albuterol delivery (Fig. 2B). Interestingly, CL was found to have no significant impact on albuterol delivery (Fig. 2D). It was likely that the lack of influence of CL was attributed to minibursts of air delivered by IPV with high frequency. The IPV-treated airways can be held inflated by the high-frequency gas pulse.3,4 By contrast, increased Raw had a negative impact on albuterol delivery (Fig. 2C). The decrease in albuterol delivery at high Raw was related to a decrease in the quantity of gas entrained by the venturi as a result of the increased downstream resistance. The same is true for the decrease in VT with increasing Raw (see supplementary Fig. 3 at http://www.rcjournal.com).

The maximum albuterol delivery was observed when VT was >200 mL (Fig. 4). It should be noted that albuterol delivery correlated with VT during IPV (r = 0.91, P < .001) (Fig. 4). Previously, the impact of VT on drug delivery has been reported as both positive and neutral by using jet nebulizers, a pressurized metered-dose inhaler, and IPV.13,21–25 O'Riordan et al,25 when using 4 types of jet nebulizers, reported that increasing VT from 700 to 1,000 mL resulted in up to a 25% increase in drug delivery. Fink et al23 found a progressive increase in drug delivery from a pressurized metered-dose inhaler with increasing VT from 100 to 800 mL. In contrast, Berlinski and Willis13 reported that changing the VT setting in a pediatric ventilator model from 100 to 200 mL did not increase drug delivery via IPV or jet nebulizer. However, the relationship between drug delivery and VT differed, depending on the position of IPV in the ventilator circuit. When IPV was placed at the humidifier (distal from the lung model), drug delivery to the lung model increased by ∼50% with increasing VT, although the amount of albuterol delivered was markedly lower with IPV at the humidifier than that at the Y-piece (proximal to the lung model).13 Although it seems likely that both VT and the distance between the aerosol generator and the lung model influences drug delivery via IPV, neither VT nor the distance affects drug delivery with a jet nebulizer.13 Thus, there is a complex relationship between drug delivery and VT. In our study, concomitant increases of VT and albuterol delivery were observed via IPV alone, which indicated that the IPV settings of frequency and operational pressure that improved albuterol delivery were effective in ventilation as well.

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

Relationship between tidal volume (VT) and albuterol delivery.

Only a small fraction of nebulized albuterol was emitted from the IPV device (Fig. 1B), as previously described.26 The aerosolized drug from the sliding venturi may be further deposited within the ETT and the trachea model, possibly due to turbulent flow (Fig. 1A and B).27 Thus, it seemed likely that the majority of albuterol remained inside the IPV device and was expelled from the ventilator (Fig. 1C). However, the efficiency of albuterol delivery in the study by Berlinski and Willis13 was 2 times higher (4%) than that in our study when IPV was placed at the Y-piece. Because the mechanical ventilation in their study provided VT of 100 mL or 200 mL at 20 breaths/min, the inspiratory flow from it may contribute to the drug delivery.13 In addition, the sliding venturi was different in that the ventilator was closed in their study and open in our study (see supplementary Fig. 4 at http://www.rcjournal.com). The presence or absence of the ventilator cap on the Phasitron housing may also influence the efficiency of drug delivery because a substantial amount of albuterol was expelled from the ventilator (Fig. 1C). When considering these differences in the experimental setup, the efficiency in albuterol delivery could not be directly compared between these 2 studies.13 Thus, it would be of interest to study the efficiency of drug delivery by the combination of mechanical ventilation settings with IPV settings based on the current study.

The clinical efficacy of albuterol delivery via IPV as conducted in this in vitro study was previously described for airway clearance in subjects with atelectasis or asthma on mechanical ventilation.14,15 The drug delivery via IPV involves the removal of the ventilator circuit tubing from the ETT adapter and the attachment of the IPV device's tubing to the ETT adapter, then albuterol is administered by inhalation during IPV for 10–20 min. Recently, the IPV treatment has also been performed to improve the viability and availability of lungs of brain-dead organ donors for lung transplantation.28,29 A study by Deakins and Chatburn14 used IPV settings at frequencies that ranged from 180 to 220 cycles/min and operational pressure equal to 15–30 cm H2O of the peak pressure for albuterol delivery in pediatric subjects with atelectasis. Results of our study suggested decreasing frequency to ∼100 cycles/min and increasing operational pressure to improve drug delivery, irrespective of CL. Importantly, it was reported that pulmonary congestion occurred after 20 min in healthy lungs of a rat ventilated at 45 cm H2O of PIP.30 Therefore, it is necessary to carefully maintain the airway plateau pressure <30 cm H2O during IPV for prevention of lung injury in patients with elevated Raw.31,32 Further in vivo studies on optimization of IPV parameter settings are needed for safe and effective IPV therapy in various lung diseases.

Limitation

This study was an in vitro experiment and could not be extrapolated to humans without caution because trachea and lung models mimic human lungs imperfectly. Although IPV may be superimposed on a conventional ventilator,33 this study did not consider the use of such ventilators to address the influence of the setting parameters of IPV alone on drug delivery and exclude potential influence of mechanical ventilation–related factors on drug delivery.13,34,35

Conclusions

We investigated the variations in the efficiency of drug delivery and the intrapulmonary effects with differential IPV parameter settings and lung mechanics. We showed that decreasing percussion frequency can increase drug delivery and VT. Raw had a negative impact on drug delivery, whereas CL had no significant influence. Effective parameter settings for albuterol delivery were the hard mode (lower frequency) and 20 or 40 psi of operational pressure. Because high operational pressure may result in excessive PIP gain, depending on Raw, it is important to monitor PIP with extreme caution in patients with high Raw.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Yusuke Mimura MD, Department of Clinical Research, National Hospital Organization Yamaguchi-Ube Medical Center, 685 Higashi-Kiwa, Ube, 755-0241 Japan.
  • The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

  • Supplementary material related to this paper is available at http://www.rcjournal.com.

  • See the Related Editorial on Page 612

  • Copyright © 2019 by Daedalus Enterprises

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Lucangelo U,
    2. Antonaglia V,
    3. Zin WA,
    4. Fontanesi L,
    5. Peratoner A,
    6. Bird FM,
    7. Gullo A
    . Effects of mechanical load on flow, volume and pressure delivered by high-frequency percussive ventilation. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2004;142(1):81–91.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Bott J,
    2. Blumenthal S,
    3. Buxton M,
    4. Ellum S,
    5. Falconer C,
    6. Garrod R,
    7. et al
    .; British Thoracic Society Physiotherapy Guideline Development Group. Guidelines for the physiotherapy management of the adult, medical, spontaneously breathing patient. Thorax 2009;64 Suppl 1:i1–51.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Vargas F,
    2. Bui HN,
    3. Boyer A,
    4. Salmi LR,
    5. Gbikpi-Benissan G,
    6. Guenard H,
    7. et al
    . Intrapulmonary percussive ventilation in acute exacerbations of COPD patients with mild respiratory acidosis: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN17802078]. Crit Care 2005;9(4):R382–389.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Nava S,
    2. Barbarito N,
    3. Piaggi G,
    4. De Mattia E,
    5. Cirio S
    . Physiological response to intrapulmonary percussive ventilation in stable COPD patients. Respir Med 2006;100(9):1526–1533.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.
    1. Vargas F,
    2. Boyer A,
    3. Bui HN,
    4. Guenard H,
    5. Gruson D,
    6. Hilbert G
    . Effect of intrapulmonary percussive ventilation on expiratory flow limitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. J Crit Care 2009;24(2):212–219.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Testa A,
    2. Galeri S,
    3. Villafañe JH,
    4. Corbellini C,
    5. Pillastrini P,
    6. Negrini S
    . Efficacy of short-term intrapulmonary percussive ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Disabil Rehabil 2015;37(10):899–903.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Toussaint M,
    2. De Win H,
    3. Steens M,
    4. Soudon P
    . Effect of intrapulmonary percussive ventilation on mucus clearance in duchenne muscular dystrophy patients: a preliminary report. Respir Care 2003;48(10):940–947.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Paneroni M,
    2. Clini E,
    3. Simonelli C,
    4. Bianchi L,
    5. Degli Antoni F,
    6. Vitacca M
    . Safety and efficacy of short-term intrapulmonary percussive ventilation in patients with bronchiectasis. Respir Care 2011;56(7):984–988.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Newhouse PA,
    2. White F,
    3. Marks JH,
    4. Homnick DN
    . The intrapulmonary percussive ventilator and flutter device compared to standard chest physiotherapy in patients with cystic fibrosis. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1998;37(7):427–432.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Varekojis SM,
    2. Douce FH,
    3. Flucke RL,
    4. Filbrun DA,
    5. Tice JS,
    6. McCoy KS,
    7. Castile RG
    . A comparison of the therapeutic effectiveness of and preference for postural drainage and percussion, intrapulmonary percussive ventilation, and high-frequency chest wall compression in hospitalized cystic fibrosis patients. Respir Care 2003;48(1):24–28.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Toussaint M,
    2. Guillet MC,
    3. Paternotte S,
    4. Soudon P,
    5. Haan J
    . Intrapulmonary effects of setting parameters in portable intrapulmonary percussive ventilation devices. Respir Care 2012;57(5):735–742.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Reychler G,
    2. Wallemacq P,
    3. Rodenstein DO,
    4. Cumps J,
    5. Leal T,
    6. Liistro G
    . Comparison of lung deposition of amikacin by intrapulmonary percussive ventilation and jet nebulization by urinary monitoring. J Aerosol Med 2006;19(2):199–207.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Berlinski A,
    2. Willis JR
    . Albuterol delivery via intrapulmonary percussive ventilator and jet nebulizer in a pediatric ventilator model. Respir Care 2010;55(12):1699–1704.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Deakins K,
    2. Chatburn RL
    . A comparison of intrapulmonary percussive ventilation and conventional chest physiotherapy for the treatment of atelectasis in the pediatric patient. Respir Care 2002;47(10):1162–1167.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Morita M,
    2. Kondo T,
    3. Takahashi T
    . A pediatric case of life-threatening asthma managed with sevoflurane, intrapulmonary percussive ventilation and prone positioning. J Jpn Soc Intensive Care Med 2015;22:199–201. Available at https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsicm/22/3/22_199/_pdf/-char/ja.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Berlinski A,
    2. Waldrep JC
    . Four hours of continuous albuterol nebulization. Chest 1998;114(3):847–853.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Frank NR,
    2. Mead J,
    3. Ferris BG Jr.
    . The mechanical behavior of the lungs in healthy elderly persons. J Clin Invest 1957;36(12):1680–1687.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Don HF,
    2. Robson JG
    . The mechanics of the respiratory system during anesthesia. The effects of atropine and carbon dioxide. Anesthesiology 1965;26:168–178.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Broseghini C,
    2. Brandolese R,
    3. Poggi R,
    4. Polese G,
    5. Manzin E,
    6. Milic-Emili J,
    7. Rossi A
    . Respiratory mechanics during the first day of mechanical ventilation in patients with pulmonary edema and chronic airway obstruction. Am Rev Respir Dis 1988;138(2):355–361.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Kondili E,
    2. Prinianakis G,
    3. Anastasaki M,
    4. Georgopoulos D
    . Acute effects of ventilator settings on respiratory motor output in patients with acute lung injury. Intensive Care Med 2001;27(7):1147–1157.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Fink JB
    . Aerosol delivery to ventilated infant and pediatric patients. Respir Care 2004;49(6):653–665.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.
    1. Everard ML,
    2. Stammers J,
    3. Hardy JG,
    4. Milner AD
    . New aerosol delivery system for neonatal ventilator circuits. Arch Dis Child 1992;67(7 Spec No):826–830.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Fink JB,
    2. Dhand R,
    3. Duarte AG,
    4. Jenne JW,
    5. Tobin MJ
    . Aerosol delivery from a metered-dose inhaler during mechanical ventilation. An in vitro model. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996;154(2 Pt 1):382–387.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. 24.
    1. Berlinski A,
    2. Willis JR
    . Effect of tidal volume and nebulizer type and position on albuterol delivery in a pediatric model of mechanical ventilation. Respir Care 2015;60(10):1424–1430.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    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.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Reychler G,
    2. Keyeux A,
    3. Cremers C,
    4. Veriter C,
    5. Rodenstein DO,
    6. Liistro G
    . Comparison of lung deposition in two types of nebulization: intrapulmonary percussive ventilation vs jet nebulization. Chest 2004;125(2):502–508.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Dekker E
    . Transition between laminar and turbulent flow in human trachea. J Appl Physiol 1961;16:1060–1064.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Lerg G,
    2. Shanta L
    . Intrapulmonary percussive ventilation as a lung recruitment strategy in brain-dead organ donors. Prog Transplant 2017;27(1):84–89.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    1. Chang SH,
    2. Kreisel D,
    3. Marklin GF,
    4. Cook L,
    5. Hachem R,
    6. Kozower BD,
    7. et al
    . Lung focused resuscitation at a specialized donor care facility improves lung procurement rates. Ann Thorac Surg 2018;105(5):1531–1536.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Dreyfuss D,
    2. Saumon G
    . Ventilator-induced lung injury: lessons from experimental studies. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998;157(1):294–323.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Brower RG,
    2. Matthay MA,
    3. Morris A,
    4. Schoenfeld D,
    5. Thompson BT,
    6. Wheeler A
    Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network, Brower RG, Matthay MA, Morris A, Schoenfeld D, Thompson BT, Wheeler A. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2000;342(18):1301–1308.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Malhotra A
    . Low-tidal-volume ventilation in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2007;357(11):1113–1120.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Tsuruta R,
    2. Kasaoka S,
    3. Okabayashi K,
    4. Maekawa T
    . Efficacy and safety of intrapulmonary percussive ventilation superimposed on conventional ventilation in obese patients with compression atelectasis. J Crit Care 2006;21(4):328–332.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    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
  35. 35.↵
    1. Kallet RH
    . Adjunct therapies during mechanical ventilation: airway clearance techniques, therapeutic aerosols, and gases. Respir Care 2013;58(6):1053–1073.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 64 (5)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 64, Issue 5
1 May 2019
  • 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.
Variations in the Efficiency of Albuterol Delivery and Intrapulmonary Effects With Differential Parameter Settings on Intrapulmonary Percussive Ventilation
(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
Variations in the Efficiency of Albuterol Delivery and Intrapulmonary Effects With Differential Parameter Settings on Intrapulmonary Percussive Ventilation
Takashi Karashima, Yuka Mimura-Kimura, Kanade Miyakawa, Akihiro Nakamura, Fuminori Shimahara, Haruhito Kamei, Yusuke Mimura
Respiratory Care May 2019, 64 (5) 502-508; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.06348

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Variations in the Efficiency of Albuterol Delivery and Intrapulmonary Effects With Differential Parameter Settings on Intrapulmonary Percussive Ventilation
Takashi Karashima, Yuka Mimura-Kimura, Kanade Miyakawa, Akihiro Nakamura, Fuminori Shimahara, Haruhito Kamei, Yusuke Mimura
Respiratory Care May 2019, 64 (5) 502-508; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.06348
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
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Keywords

  • intrapulmonary percussive ventilation
  • albuterol
  • drug delivery

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