Advertisement

Effect of Holding Chamber as an Add-on Device on Aerosol Delivery and Fugitive Aerosol from Different Jet Nebulizers

  • Mona A. Abdelrahman
  • Ahmed A. Elberry
  • Raghda R. S. Hussein
  • Mohamed E. AbdelrahimEmail author
Original Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

A new Circulaire II (holding chamber) was designed to be used with VixOne nebulizer to increase the inhalable doses reaching the patient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of this holding chamber with VixOne nebulizer and determine its usability with other nebulizers.

Methods

The aerodynamic characteristics of emitted dose of 2 ml salbutamol solution, 5000 μg/ml, were evaluated using cooled Andersen cascade impactor at inhalation flow 15 L/min. The respirable solutions were nebulized using 3JN (VixOne, NebuTech, and En full Kit) with both holding chamber and T-piece. To evaluate the pulmonary and systemic bioavailability, 12 non-smoking health subjects (6 females), > 18 years, with an average(SD) FEV1 > 90% of predicted, inhaled nebulized aerosol of 1 ml respirable solution (5000 μg salbutamol), diluted to 2 ml total volume using normal saline through the same nebulizer setting described above using normal tidal breathing. Subjects provided urine samples 30 min post-dosing (USAL0.5) as an index of pulmonary bioavailability and cumulatively collected their urine for 24 h (USAL24) as an index of systemic bioavailability. To determine the amount that would reach the patients (aerosol-emitted), subjects again inhaled 1 ml salbutamol-diluted respirable solution through the same nebulizer setting described above but with filters to capture salbutamol-emitted.

Results

Amount of salbutamol deposited in the holding chamber was significantly higher than in T-piece among all nebulizers (p < 0.001). The fine particle fraction (FPF), < 3 μm, of VixOne with holding chamber, was significantly higher (p < 0.001) and the mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) was significantly lower (p = 0.022) than that with T-piece. The NebuTech and Kit had lower FPF and higher MMAD with holding chamber compared to T-piece (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the USAL24 and the emitted aerosol between the 3JNs with holding chamber or T-piece.

Conclusions

Holding chamber did not significantly increase the emitted aerosol or USAL24 responsible for the side effect but improved the FPF < 3 μm and MMAD, responsible for lung deposition, with VixOne-JN only. Holding chamber, or similar add-on device, can be used with other nebulizers other than the VixOne, not to increase the inhaled dose but as a fugitive aerosol saver.

Keywords

Holding chamber T-piece Jet nebulizers Andersen cascade impactor 

Notes

Author Contributions

Mona Ahmed: Experiment, data entry, statistics, and writing.

Raghda R.S. Hussein: Experiment and study design.

Ahmed A. Elberry: Concept and study design.

Mohamed E. Abdelrahim: Concept, planning of study design, statistics, and writing.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This study was conducted in accordance with the amended Declaration of Helsinki. Local institutional review boards and independent ethics committees approved the protocol and written informed consent was obtained from all volunteers.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

12247_2018_9369_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (6 kb)
ESM 1 (JPG 6 kb)
12247_2018_9369_MOESM2_ESM.jpg (6 kb)
ESM 2 (JPG 6 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Dean RH. Nebulizers: principles and performance. Respir Care. 2000;45(6):609.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pisut F. Comparison of medication delivery by T-nebulizer with inspiratory and expiratory reservoir. Respir Care. 1989;34(11):985–8.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nwakaego CO. Cost-benefit analysis of a dosimetric nebulizer using Circulaire and aTraditional Vixone nebulizer. The College of Health and Human Science: Georgia State University; 2011.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thomas S, Langford J, George R, Geddes D. Improving the efficiency of drug administration with jet nebulisers. Lancet. 1988;331(8577):126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marshall L, Francis P, Khafagi F. Aerosol deposition in cystic fibrosis using an aerosol conservation device and a conventional jet nebulizer. J Paediatr Child Health. 1994;30(1):65–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dennis JH. A review of issues relating to nebulizer standards. J Aerosol Med. 1998;11(s1):S-73–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rau JL, Ari A, Restrepo RD. Performance comparison of nebulizer designs: constant-output, breath-enhanced, and dosimetric. Respir Care. 2004;49(2):174–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gardenhire DS, editor. Improved aerosol delivery with a conserver-type nebulizer system powered by 6 common home air compressors. Submitted to the American Association for Respiratory Care for the AARC Open Forum to be held November; 2013.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gardenhire DS, editor. An in vitro comparison of two dosimetric nebulizers. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine; 2011. Am Thoracic Soc.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Silkstone V, Dennis J, Pieron C, Chrystyn H. An investigation of in vitro/in vivo correlations for salbutamol nebulized by eight systems. J Aerosol Med. 2002;15(3):251–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sarhan RM, Elberry AA, Abdelwahab NS, Rabea H, Salem MN, Abdelrahim MEA. Effect of a nebulizer holding chamber on aerosol delivery. Respir Care. 2018:(In Press;63:1125–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Madney YM, Fathy M, Elberry AA, Rabea H, Abdelrahim MEA. Nebulizers and spacers for aerosol delivery through adult nasal cannula at low oxygen flow rate: an in-vitro study. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol. 2017;39:260–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harb HS, Elberry AA, Rabea H, Fathy M, Abdelrahim MEA. Is Combihaler usable for aerosol delivery in single limb non-invasive mechanical ventilation? J Drug Deliv Sci Technol. 2017 2017/08/01/;40:28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ElHansy MHE, Boules ME, Farid H, Chrystyn H, El-Maraghi SK, Al-Kholy MB, et al. In vitro aerodynamic characteristics of aerosol delivered from different inhalation methods in mechanical ventilation. Pharm Dev Technol. 2017;22(6):844–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abdelrahim ME. Aerodynamic characteristics of nebulized terbutaline sulphate using the Andersen cascade impactor compared to the next generation impactor. Pharm Dev Technol. 2011;16(2):137–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hassan A, Rabea H, Hussein RR, Eldin RS, Abdelrahman MM, Said AS, et al. In-vitro characterization of the aerosolized dose during non-invasive automatic continuous positive airway pressure ventilation. Pulm Ther. 2016;2(1):115–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abdelrahim ME, Plant P, Chrystyn H. In-vitro characterisation of the nebulised dose during non-invasive ventilation. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2010;62(8):966–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Abdelrahim ME, Chrystyn H. Aerodynamic characteristics of nebulized terbutaline sulphate using the next generation impactor (NGI) and CEN method. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2009;22(1):19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Berg E, Svensson JO, Asking L. Determination of nebulizer droplet size distribution: a method based on impactor refrigeration. J Aerosol Med. 2007;20(2):97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rabea H, Ali AM, Eldin RS, Abdelrahman MM, Said AS, Abdelrahim ME. Modelling of in-vitro and in-vivo performance of aerosol emitted from different vibrating mesh nebulisers in non-invasive ventilation circuit. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2017;97:182–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hindle M, Chrystyn H. Determination of the relative bioavailability of salbutamol to the lung following inhalation [see comments]. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1992;34(4):311–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mazhar SH, Ismail NE, Newton DA, Chrystyn H. Relative lung deposition of salbutamol following inhalation from a spacer and a Sidestream jet nebulizer following an acute exacerbation. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;65(3):334–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saeed H, Mohsen M, Fink JB, Dailey P, Salah Eldin A, Abdelrahman MM, et al. Fill volume, humidification and heat effects on aerosol delivery and fugitive emissions during noninvasive ventilation. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol. 2017;39:372–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moustafa IOF, ElHansy MHE, Al Hallag M, Fink JB, Dailey P, Rabea H, et al. Clinical outcome associated with the use of different inhalation method with and without humidification in asthmatic mechanically ventilated patients. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2017;45:40–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mohsen M, Elberry AE, Salah Eldin A, Hussein RR, Abdelrahim EM. Effects of heat and humidification on aerosol delivery during auto-CPAP noninvasive ventilation. Arch Pulmonol Respir Care. 2017;3(1):11–5.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saeed H, Mohsen M, Salah Eldin A, Elberry AA, Abdelwahab NS, Hussein RRS, et al. Effects of fill volume and humidification on aerosol delivery during single limb non-invasive ventilation. Respir Care. 2018:(In Press;63:1370–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Saeed H, Ali AMA, Elberry AA, Eldin AS, Rabea H, Abdelrahim MEA. Modeling and optimization of nebulizers’ performance in non-invasive ventilation using different fill volumes: comparative study between vibrating mesh and jet nebulizers. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2018 2018/06/01/;50:62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harb HS, Elberry AA, Rabea H, Fathy M, Abdelrahim MEA. Performance of large spacer versus nebulizer T-piece in single limb non-invasive ventilation. Respir Care. 2018:(In Press;63:1360–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hassan A, Salah Eldin R, Abdelrahman MM, Abdelrahim ME. In-vitro/in-vivo comparison of inhaled salbutamol dose delivered by jet nebulizer, vibrating mesh nebulizer and metered dose inhaler with spacer during non-invasive ventilation. Exp Lung Res. 2017;43(1):19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    ElHansy MH, Boules ME, El Essawy AFM, Al-Kholy MB, Abdelrahman MM, Said AS, et al. Inhaled salbutamol dose delivered by jet nebulizer, vibrating mesh nebulizer and metered dose inhaler with spacer during invasive mechanical ventilation. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2017;45:159–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moustafa IO, Ali MR-A, Al Hallag M, Rabea H, Fink JB, Dailey P, et al. Lung deposition and systemic bioavailability of different aerosol devices with and without humidification in mechanically ventilated patients. Heart Lung: J Acute Crit Care. 2017;46(6):464–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hussein RR, MA Ali A, Salem HF, Abdelrahman MM, Said AS, Abdelrahim ME. In vitro/in vivo correlation and modeling of emitted dose and lung deposition of inhaled salbutamol from metered dose inhalers with different types of spacers in noninvasively ventilated patients. Pharm Dev Technol. 2017;22(7):871–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Madney YM, Fathy M, Elberry AA, Rabea H, Abdelrahim MEA. Aerosol delivery through adult nasal-cannula via HFNC circuit at a low-oxygen flow. Respir Care. 2018. (In press).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Evans ME, Walker S, Brittain R, Paterson J. The metabolism of salbutamol in man. Xenobiotica. 1973;3(2):113–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Abdelrahim M, Plant P, Chrystyn H. The relative lung and systemic bioavailability of terbutaline following nebulisation in non-invasively ventilated patients. Int J Pharm. 2011;420(2):313–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dimich-Ward H, Wymer ML, Chan-Yeung M. Respiratory health survey of respiratory therapists. CHEST J. 2004;126(4):1048–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Christiani DC, Kern DG. Asthma risk and occupation as a respiratory therapist. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1993;148:671–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Carnathan B, Martin B, Colice G. Second hand (S)-albuterol: RT exposure risk following racemic albuterol. Respir Care. 2001;46(10):1084.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kern DG, Frumkin H. Asthma in respiratory therapists. Ann Intern Med. 1989;110(10):767–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Demers B. Drugs prescribed for patients shouldn’t be taken by caregivers. CHEST J. 2004;126(4):1012–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Delclos GL, Gimeno D, Arif AA, Burau KD, Carson A, Lusk C, et al. Occupational risk factors and asthma among health care professionals. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;175(7):667–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Witt-Enderby PA, Yamamura HI, Halonen M, Palmer JD, Bloom JW. Chronic exposure to a β2-adrenoceptor agonist increases the airway response to methacholine. Eur J Pharmacol. 1993;241(1):121–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Piper SD. In vitro comparison of the circulaire and AeroTee to a traditional nebulizer T-piece with corrugated tubing. Respir Care. 2000;45(3):313–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hess D, Fisher D, Williams P, Pooler S, Kacmarek RM. Medication nebulizer performance: effects of diluent volume, nebulizer flow, and nebulizer brand. Chest. 1996;110(2):498–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mason JW, Miller WC. Comparison of aerosol delivery via circulaire nebulizer system versus a disposable nebulizer in COPD patients. Respir Care. 1996;41(11):1006–8.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mason JW, Miller WC, Small S. Comparison of aerosol delivery via Circulaire system vs conventional small volume nebulizer. Respir Care. 1994;39(12):1157–61.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hoffman L, Smithline H. Comparison of Circulaire to conventional small volume nebulizer for the treatment of bronchospasm in the emergency department. Respir Care. 1997;42(12):1170–4.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Raabe O, Howard R, Cross C. Aerosol considerations in asthma. Bronchial asthma, principles of diagnosis and treatment. 2nd ed. Orlando: Grune & Stratton; 1986. p. 495–514.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Saeed H, Elberry AA, Eldin AS, Rabea H, Abdelrahim ME. Effect of nebulizer designs on aerosol delivery during non-invasive mechanical ventilation: a modeling study of in vitro data. Pulm Ther. 2017;3(1):233–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ari A, Fink JB, Pilbeam S. Secondhand aerosol exposure during mechanical ventilation with and without expiratory filters: an in-vitro study. Indian J Respir Care. 2016;5(1):677.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mitchell J. Inhalation and nasal formulations. In: Developing drug products in an aging society. Springer; 2016. p. 331–82.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Loffert DT, Ikle D, Nelson HS. A comparison of commercial jet nebulizers. Chest. 1994;106(6):1788–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Alvine GF, Rodgers P, Fitzsimmons KM, Ahrens RC. Disposable jet nebulizers: how reliable are they? Chest. 1992;101(2):316–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Langford S, Allen M. Salbutamol output from two jet nebulizers. Respir Med. 1993;87(2):99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ho SL, Coates AL. Effect of dead volume on the efficiency and the cost to deliver medications in cystic fibrosis with four disposable nebulizers. Can Respir J. 1999;6(3):253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Coates AL, MacNeish CF, Lands LC, Meisner D, Kelemen S, Vadas EB. A comparison of the availability of tobramycin for inhalation from vented vs unvented nebulizers. Chest. 1998;113(4):951–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Waldrep JC, Keyhani K, Black M, Knight V. Operating characteristics of 18 different continuous-flow jet nebulizers with beclomethasone dipropionate liposome aerosol. Chest. 1994;105(1):106–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Vecellio L, Abdelrahim ME, Montharu J, Galle J, Diot P, Dubus J-C. Disposable versus reusable jet nebulizers for cystic fibrosis treatment with tobramycin. J Cyst Fibros. 2011;10(2):86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bosco AP, Rhem RG, Dolovich MB. In vitro estimations of in vivo jet nebulizer efficiency using actual and simulated tidal breathing patterns. J Aerosol Med. 2005;18(4):427–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Dhand R. Aerosol delivery during mechanical ventilation: from basic techniques to new devices. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2008;21(1):45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of PharmacyBeni Suef UniversityBeni SuefEgypt
  2. 2.Clinical Pharmacology Department, Faculty of MedicineBeni Suef UniversityBeni SuefEgypt
  3. 3.Clinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of Ahram CanadianGizaEgypt

Personalised recommendations