-
J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv · Dec 2010
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative StudyDelivery efficacy of a vibrating mesh nebulizer and a jet nebulizer under different configurations.
- Laurent Pitance, Laurent Vecellio, Teresinha Leal, Gregory Reychler, Herve Reychler, and Giuseppe Liistro.
- Université catholique de Louvain, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium. laurent.pitance@uclouvain.be
- J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2010 Dec 1; 23 (6): 389-96.
BackgroundJet nebulizers coupled to spacers are frequently used to promote drug lung deposition, but their clinical efficacy has not been established. Few in vivo studies have been performed with mesh nebulizers, commonly used to nebulize antibiotics. Our study compared inhaled mass and urinary drug concentration of amikacin by using three different nebulizer delivery configuration systems: a standard unvented jet nebulizer (Sidestream(®)) used alone or coupled to a 110-mL corrugated piece of tubing and a vibrating mesh nebulizer (e-Flow rapid(®)).MethodThe inhaled mass of amikacin was assessed using the residual gravimetric method. Delivery efficacy was evaluated by assessing amikacin urinary drug concentration in six healthy spontaneously breathing volunteers. Urinary amikacin was monitored by fluorescent polarization immunoassay then cumulative excreted amount and antibiotic elimination rate were calculated.Results And ConclusionsThe total daily amount of amikacin urinary excretion (Cu) was almost twice as high with eFlow rapid(®) compared to Sidestream(®) used alone; intermediate values being observed when the device was coupled to a corrugated piece of tubing. The latter configuration was also associated with a higher total daily amount of amikacin urinary excretion. In vivo drug output rate was around threefold higher with the eFlow Rapid(®) than with the Sidestream(®) used in any configuration. These results were concordant to those obtained with in vitro analysis comparing inhaled mass of amikacin for the three nebulizers. The elimination constant (Ke) and the mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) did not differ between the three devices. In conclusion, the vibrating mesh nebulizer is more efficient, promoting larger urinary drug concentration and drug output. Coupling a corrugated piece of tubing to the standard jet nebulizer favors delivery efficacy.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.