2012 OPEN FORUM Abstracts
THE EFFECT OF NEBULIZER TYPE AND MASK DESIGN ON AEROSOL DELIVERY DURING NONINVASIVE POSITIVE PRESSURE VENTILATION OF AN ADULT LUNG MODEL.
Maher AlQuaimi1, James B. Fink2, Robert Harwood2, Meryl Sheard2, Lawrence Bryant2, Arzu Ari2; 1Respiratory care, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia; 2Respiratory care, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA
BACKGROUND: Patients with acute exacerbations of airway obstruction are commonly managed with aerosol therapy and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV); however, the efficiency of different NIPPV masks on aerosol deposition during NIPPV is not well understood. The purpose of this study was: To determine the efficiency of three different NIPPV masks in conjunction with two different VMNs during NIPPV. METHODS: An in-vitro lung model consisted of the upper airway of an adult teaching manikin with a collecting filter at the level of the bronchi attached to a passive test lung. Three masks were used: (1) Full Face mask (Performax mask) (2) Oro-nasal mask (AF531) and (3) Performa track mask. NIPPV was administered via each mask with PIP/PEEP of 20/5 cmH2O. Albuterol sulfate (2.5 mg/ 3ml) was nebulized with two vibrating mesh nebulizers: (1) Aeroneb Solo (Aerogen) and (2) NIVO (Respironics). Each nebulizer was placed between the leak and the mask. Filters were eluted with 0.1 HCl and analyzed by spectrophotometer at 276 nm. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA and dependent t-test were used for data analysis (p < 0.05). RESULTS: The mean (± SD) values for inhaled mass and percentage of nominal dose are shown in the table below. With both Solo and NIVO aerosol generators the oro-nasal mask is more efficient than the full face mask (p=0.012 and p=0.037, respectively). Aerosol delivery with both aerosol generators are similar with full mask (p=0.284). CONCLUSION: Delivery efficiencies of mesh nebulizers during NIPPV vary with both neb and mask designs. Sponsored Research - None