Dataset Information

Inhaled antibiotics during mechanical ventilation-why it will work.

ABSTRACT: Inhaled antibiotics are a common therapy among patients suffering recurrent or chronic pulmonary infections. Their use is less frequent in acutely ill patients despite a strong theoretical rationale and growing evidence of their efficiency, safety and beneficial effect on reducing bacterial resistance emergence. Clinical trials of inhaled antibiotics have shown contradictory results among mechanically ventilated patients. The optimal nebulization setup, not always implemented in all trials, the difficulty to identify the population most likely to benefit and the testing of various therapeutic strategies such as adjunctive versus alternative to systemic antibiotics may explain the disparity in trial results. The present review first presents the reasons why inhaled antibiotics have to be developed and the benefits to be expected of inhaled anti-infectious therapy among mechanically ventilated patients. A second part develops the constraints of aerosolized therapies that one has to be aware of and the simple actions required during nebulization to ensure optimal delivery to the distal lung parenchyma. Positive and negative studies concerning inhaled antibiotics are compared to understand the discrepancies of their findings and conclusions. The last part presents current developments and perspective which will likely turn it into a fully successful therapeutic modality, and makes the link between inhaled antibiotics and inhaled anti-infectious therapy.

SUBMITTER: Desgrouas M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8105850 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To determine the feasibility of delivering inhaled treprostinil during mechanical ventilation and spontaneous unassisted ventilation using the Tyvaso Inhalation System and the vibrating mesh nebulizer. We sought to compare differences in fine particle fraction, and absolute inhaled treprostinil mass delivered to neonatal, pediatric, and adult models affixed with a face mask, conventional, and high-frequency ventilation between Tyvaso Inhalation System and with different nebulizer locations between Tyvaso Inhalation System and vibrating mesh nebulizer.Fine particle fraction was first determined via impaction with both the Tyvaso Inhalation System and vibrating mesh nebulizer. Next, a test lung configured with neonatal, pediatric, and adult mechanics and a filter to capture medication was attached to a realistic face model during spontaneous breathing or an endotracheal tube during conventional ventilation and high-frequency oscillator ventilator. Inhaled treprostinil was then nebulized with both the Tyvaso Inhalation System and vibrating mesh nebulizer, and the filter was analyzed via high-performance liquid chromatography. Testing was done in triplicate. Independent two-sample t tests were used to compare mean fine particle fraction and inhaled mass between devices. Analysis of variance with Tukey post hoc tests were used to compare within device differences.Academic children's hospital aerosol research laboratory.Fine particle fraction was not different between the Tyvaso Inhalation System and vibrating mesh nebulizer (0.78?±?0.04 vs 0.77?±?0.08, respectively; p = 0.79). The vibrating mesh nebulizer delivered the same or greater inhaled treprostinil than the Tyvaso Inhalation System in every simulated model and condition. When using the vibrating mesh nebulizer, delivery was highest when using high-frequency oscillator ventilator in the neonatal and pediatric models, and with the nebulizer in the distal position in the adult model.The vibrating mesh nebulizer is a suitable alternative to the Tyvaso Inhalation System for inhaled treprostinil delivery. Fine particle fraction is similar between devices, and vibrating mesh nebulizer delivery meets or exceeds delivery of the Tyvaso Inhalation System. Delivery for infants and children during high-frequency oscillator ventilator with the vibrating mesh nebulizer may result in higher than expected dosages.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Volume-controlled ventilation has been suggested to optimize lung deposition during nebulization although promoting spontaneous ventilation is targeted to avoid ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction. Comparing topographic aerosol lung deposition during volume-controlled ventilation and spontaneous ventilation in pressure support has never been performed. The aim of this study was to compare lung deposition of a radiolabeled aerosol generated with a vibrating-mesh nebulizer during invasive mechanical ventilation, with two modes: pressure support ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation. METHODS:Seventeen postoperative neurosurgery patients without pulmonary disease were randomly ventilated in pressure support or volume-controlled ventilation. Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid labeled with technetium-99m (2 mCi/3 mL) was administrated using a vibrating-mesh nebulizer (Aerogen Solo(®), provided by Aerogen Ltd, Galway, Ireland) connected to the endotracheal tube. Pulmonary and extrapulmonary particles deposition was analyzed using planar scintigraphy. RESULTS:Lung deposition was 10.5 ± 3.0 and 15.1 ± 5.0 % of the nominal dose during pressure support and volume-controlled ventilation, respectively (p < 0.05). Higher endotracheal tube and tracheal deposition was observed during pressure support ventilation (27.4 ± 6.6 vs. 20.7 ± 6.0 %, p < 0.05). A similar penetration index was observed for the right (p = 0.210) and the left lung (p = 0.211) with both ventilation modes. A high intersubject variability of lung deposition was observed with both modes regarding lung doses, aerosol penetration and distribution between the right and the left lung. CONCLUSIONS:In the specific conditions of the study, volume-controlled ventilation was associated with higher lung deposition of nebulized particles as compared to pressure support ventilation. The clinical benefit of this effect warrants further studies. Clinical trial registration NCT01879488.

Project description:BackgroundMechanical power (MP) is the energy delivered to the respiratory system over time during mechanical ventilation. Our aim was to compare the currently available methods to calculate MP during volume- and pressure-controlled ventilation, comparing different equations with the geometric reference method, to understand whether the easier to use surrogate formulas were suitable for the everyday clinical practice. This would warrant a more widespread use of mechanical power to promote lung protection.MethodsForty respiratory failure patients, sedated and paralyzed for clinical reasons, were ventilated in volume-controlled ventilation, at two inspiratory flows (30 and 60 L/min), and pressure-controlled ventilation with a similar tidal volume. Mechanical power was computed both with the geometric method, as the area between the inspiratory limb of the airway pressure and the volume, and with two algebraic methods, a comprehensive and a surrogate formula.ResultsThe bias between the MP computed by the geometric method and by the comprehensive algebraic method during volume-controlled ventilation was respectively 0.053 (0.77, - 0.81) J/min and - 0.4 (0.70, - 1.50) J/min at low and high flows (r2 = 0.96 and 0.97, p < 0.01). The MP measured and computed by the two methods were highly correlated (r2 = 0.95 and 0.94, p < 0.01) with a bias of - 0.0074 (0.91, - 0.93) and - 1.0 (0.45, - 2.52) J/min at high-low flows. During pressure-controlled ventilation, the bias between the MP measured and the one calculated with the comprehensive and simplified methods was correlated (r2 = 0.81, 0.94, p < 0.01) with mean differences of - 0.001 (2.05, - 2.05) and - 0.81 (2.11, - 0.48) J/min.ConclusionsBoth for volume-controlled and pressure-controlled ventilation, the surrogate formulas approximate the reference method well enough to warrant their use in the everyday clinical practice. Given that these formulas require nothing more than the variables already displayed by the intensive care ventilator, a more widespread use of mechanical power should be encouraged to promote lung protection against ventilator-induced lung injury.

Dataset Information

Inhaled antibiotics during mechanical ventilation-why it will work.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets