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
EditorialEditorial

The Basic Problem

Bruce K Rubin
Respiratory Care October 2020, 65 (10) 1626; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.08405
Bruce K Rubin
The Children’s Hospital of RichmondVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmond, Virginia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Respiratory therapists are expert at the aerosol delivery of medication. We recognize the many advantages of aerosol delivery, including decreased cost, less systemic exposure, fewer systemic side effects, faster onset of action at the site of disease, faster delivery, and “user friendliness” compared with intravenous administration.1 However, for an aerosolized medication to be safe and effective, it needs to be able to be delivered as an aerosol, which often means it needs to be soluble or solubilized in a carrier, it must not be inactivated at the airway surface, it must not be harmful to the airway or the lung, and it must have demonstrated efficacy. Clearly not every drug is a candidate for aerosol delivery, and drugs that are administered by aerosol often require special formulations different from those used in intravenous preparations.2

Intravenous formations of epoprostenol have been delivered via aerosol and are effective pulmonary vasodilators in very sick patients with pulmonary hypertension. Aerosolized intravenous epoprostenol is similar in effectiveness to inhaled nitric oxide for improving oxygenation, de-creasing right-ventricular afterload, and decreasing pulmonary artery pressure.3 However, inhaled nitric oxide is far more expensive.

Despite its effectiveness, there are very few data related to the safety of intravenous epoprostenol when given as an aerosol. In this issue of Respiratory Care, Kuch and colleagues4 evaluated the effect of aerosolized intravenous epoprostenol in either a glycine buffer or a sucrose/l-arginine buffer. Human airway cells were grown and differentiated at an air-liquid interface to form an organotypic airway to test the effects of these aerosols in vitro. They demonstrated that epoprostenol in either of these buffers rapidly induced ciliostasis and airway cell death. Given the very high pH (ie, 11–13) of the buffers commonly used for epoprostenol aerosols, it was not surprising to see adverse effects on the airways, but these results were dramatic.4

These studies were conducted in vitro on an organotypic airway model; however these adverse effects may not be as severe when administered to persons with pulmonary hypertension.5 On the other hand, patients receiving aerosolized epoprostenol are often acutely ill with severe cardiopulmonary disease and are at greatest risk for additional insults to their lungs. Given these results, it is prudent that, if epoprostenol is to be administered to critically ill patients via aerosol, the administration time be minimized. There is also an opportunity for developing inhaled vasodilators in a buffer solution with a more neutral pH. Although it is critically important to improve oxygenation and decrease pulmonary artery pressure in severely ill patients, this should not be at the cost of airway damage and thus increasing the risk of mucostasis and infection.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Bruce K Rubin MEngr MD MBA FAARC, Department of Pediatrics, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Children's Hospital of Richmond at VCU, 1000 East Broad St, Richmond, VA 23298. E-mail: bruce.rubin{at}vcuhealth.org
  • See the Original Study on Page 1427

  • The author has disclosed no conflicts of interest.

  • Copyright © 2020 by Daedalus Enterprises

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Rubin BK
    . Air and soul: the science and application of aerosol therapy. Respir Care 2010;55(7):911-921.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Rubin BK
    . Pediatric aerosol therapy: new devices and new drugs. Respir Care 2011;56(9):1411-1421.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Walmrath D,
    2. Schneider T,
    3. Schermuly R,
    4. Olschewski H,
    5. Grimminger F,
    6. Seeger W
    . Direct comparison of inhaled nitric oxide and aerosolized prostacyclin in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996;153(3):991-996.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Kuch BA,
    2. Linssen R,
    3. Yoshikawa H,
    4. Smallwood CD,
    5. Davis MD
    . Local effects of two pulmonary vasodilators on airway epithelium. Resp Care 2020in press
  5. 5.↵
    1. Upadhyay S,
    2. Palmberg L
    . Air-liquid interface: Relevant in vitro models for investigating air pollutant-induced pulmonary toxicity. Toxicol Sci 2018;164(1):21-30.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 65 (10)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 65, Issue 10
1 Oct 2020
  • 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.
The Basic Problem
(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
The Basic Problem
Bruce K Rubin
Respiratory Care Oct 2020, 65 (10) 1626; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.08405

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
The Basic Problem
Bruce K Rubin
Respiratory Care Oct 2020, 65 (10) 1626; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.08405
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