COVID-19 may lead to serious respiratory complications which may necessitate ventilatory support. There is concern surrounding potential release of patient-derived bioaerosol during nebuliser drug refill, which could impact the health of caregivers. Consequently, mesh nebulisers have been recommended by various clinical practice guidelines. Currently, there is a lack of empirical data describing the potential for release of patient-derived bioaerosol during drug refill. This study examined the release of simulated patient-derived bioaerosol, and the effect on positive end expiratory pressure during nebuliser refill during mechanical ventilation of a simulated patient. During jet nebuliser refill, the positive end expiratory pressure decreased from 4.5 to 0 cm H₂O. No loss in pressure was noted during vibrating mesh nebuliser refill. A median particle number concentration of 710 particles cm⁻³ above ambient was detected when refilling the jet nebuliser in comparison to no increase above ambient detected when using the vibrating mesh nebuliser. The jet nebuliser with the endotracheal tube clamped resulted in 60 particles cm⁻³ above ambient levels. This study confirms that choice of nebuliser impacts both the potential for patient-derived bioaerosol release and the ability to maintain ventilator circuit pressures and validates the recommended use of mesh nebulisers during mechanical ventilation.

Drug delivery devices used for aerosol therapy during mechanical ventilation to ease the symptoms of respiratory diseases provide beneficial treatment but can also pose challenges. Reflecting the significant changes in global guidance around aerosol usage and lung-protective ventilation strategies, seen in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, for the first time, we describe the drug delivery performance of commonly used devices under these conditions. Here, vibrating mesh nebuliser (VMN), jet nebuliser (JN) and pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) performance was assessed during simulated adult mechanical ventilation. Both standard test breathing patterns and those representatives of low tidal volume (LTV) ventilation with concurrent active and passive humidification were investigated. Drug delivery using a VMN was significantly greater than that with a JN and pMDI for both standard and LTV ventilation. Humidification type did not affect the delivered dose across all device types for standard ventilation. Significant variability in the pMDI dosing was evident, depending on the timing of actuation and the adapter type used. pMDI actuation synchronised with inspiration resulted in a higher delivered drug dose. The type of adapter used for pMDI actuation influenced drug delivery, with the highest dose observed using the CombiHaler.

There are variations in the values reported for aerosol drug delivery across in vitro experiments throughout the published literature, and often with the same devices or similar experimental setups. Factors contributing to this variability include, but are not limited to device type, equipment settings, drug type and quantification methods. This study assessed the impact of head model choice on aerosol drug delivery using six different adults and three different paediatric head models in combination with a facemask, mouthpiece, and high-flow nasal cannula. Under controlled test conditions, the quantity of drug collected varied depending on the choice of head model. Head models vary depending on a combination of structural design differences, facial features (size and structure), internal volume measurements and airway geometries and these variations result in the differences in aerosol delivery. Of the widely available head models used in this study, only three were seen to closely predict in vivo aerosol delivery performance in adults compared with published scintigraphy data. Further, this testing identified the limited utility of some head models under certain test conditions, for example, the range reported across head models was aerosol drug delivery of 2.62 ± 2.86% to 37.79 ± 1.55% when used with a facemask. For the first time, this study highlights the impact of head model choice on reported aerosol drug delivery within a laboratory setting and contributes to explaining the differences in values reported within the literature.

Question addressed by study: Administration of aerosol to patients receiving high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) ranges from concurrent aerosol delivery by mouthpiece to aerosolviacannula alone. This study examines the conditions to provide optimal aerosol delivery with low- or high-flow nasal oxygen with concurrent mouthpiece or through nasal cannula alone, and the impact on fugitive aerosols.Materials and methods: A vibrating mesh nebuliser delivered salbutamolviamouthpiece, aerosol holding chamber and nasal cannula to an adult head model simulating relaxed breathing. The mean±sdinhaled dose (%) was assayed from a filter distal to the trachea. Optical particle sizers were used to measure fugitive aerosol concentrations during aerosol delivery.Results: Concurrent low-flow nasal oxygen (LFNO) and aerosol delivery with a mouthpiece and aerosol holding chamber increased the inhaled dose (%) available, 31.44±1.33% when supplemented with 2 L·min⁻¹of nasal oxygen. Concurrent HFNO above 30 L·min⁻¹resulted in a lower inhaled dose (%) compared to aerosol delivered through HFNO alone. The addition of concurrent LFNO or HFNO resulted in no increase in aerosol levels in the test room.Answer to question posed: Concurrent LFNO with a mouthpiece and aerosol holding chamber is an effective and safe means of aerosol delivery.

COVID-19 can cause serious respiratory complications resulting in the need for invasive ventilatory support and concurrent aerosol therapy. Aerosol therapy is considered a high risk procedure for the transmission of patient derived infectious aerosol droplets. Critical-care workers are considered to be at a high risk of inhaling such infectious droplets. The objective of this work was to use noninvasive optical methods to visualize the potential release of aerosol droplets during aerosol therapy in a model of an invasively ventilated adult patient. The noninvasive Schlieren imaging technique was used to visualize the movement of air and aerosol. Three different aerosol delivery devices: (i) a pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI), (ii) a compressed air driven jet nebulizer (JN), and (iii) a vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN), were used to deliver an aerosolized therapeutic at two different positions: (i) on the inspiratory limb at the wye and (ii) on the patient side of the wye, between the wye and endotracheal tube, to a simulated intubated adult patient. Irrespective of position, there was a significant release of air and aerosol from the ventilator circuit during aerosol delivery with the pMDI and the compressed air driven JN. There was no such release when aerosol therapy was delivered with a closed-circuit VMN. Selection of aerosol delivery device is a major determining factor in the release of infectious patient derived bioaerosol from an invasively mechanically ventilated patient receiving aerosol therapy.

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy is being increasingly adopted in intensive and home care settings. The concurrent delivery of aerosolised therapeutics allows for the targeted treatment of respiratory illnesses. This study examined in-line aerosol therapy via a nasal cannula to simulated adult and paediatric models with healthy, obstructive and restrictive lung types. The Aerogen Solo vibrating mesh nebuliser was used in combination with the Inspired^TM O2FLO high-flow therapy system. Representative adult and paediatric head models were connected to a breathing simulator, which replicated several different states of lung health. The aerosol delivery was quantified at the tracheal level using UV-spectrophotometry. Testing was performed at a range of supplemental gas flow rates applicable to both models. Positive end-expiratory pressure was measured pre-, during and post-nebulisation. The increases in supplemental gas flow rates resulted in a decrease in aerosol delivery, irrespective of lung health. Large tidal volumes and extended inspiratory phases were associated with the greatest aerosol delivery. Gas flow to inspiratory flow ratios of 0.29–0.5 were found to be optimum for aerosol delivery. To enhance aerosol delivery to patients receiving high-flow nasal oxygen therapy, respiratory therapists should keep supplemental gas-flow rates below the inspiratory flow of the patient.