0
Laboratory and Animal Investigations |

Comparison of Breath-Enhanced to Breath-Actuated Nebulizers for Rate, Consistency, and Efficiency*

Kitty Leung, BSc; Emily Louca, BSc, RRT; Allan L. Coates, B Eng(Elect), MDCM
Author and Funding Information

*From the Division of Respiratory Medicine and Lung Biology Research, Hospital for Sick Children, Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Correspondence to: Allan L. Coates, B Eng(Elect), MDCM, Division of Respiratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5G 1X8; allan.coates@sickkids.ca



Chest. 2004;126(5):1619-1627. doi:10.1378/chest.126.5.1619
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objectives: To evaluate differences between three new-generation nebulizers—Pari LC Star (Pari Respiratory Equipment; Mississauga, ON, Canada), AeroEclipse (Trudell Medical International, London, ON, Canada), and Halolite (Medic-Aid Limited, West Sussex, UK)—in terms of rate and amount of expected deposition as well as the consistency of the doses delivered.

Methods: The in vitro performance characteristics were determined and then coupled to the respiratory pattern of seven patients with cystic fibrosis (age range, 4 to 18 years) in order to calculate expected deposition. The Pari LC Star and AeroEclipse were characterized while being driven by the Pari ProNeb Ultra compressor (Pari Respiratory Equipment) for home use, and by a 50-psi medical air hospital source. The Halolite has its own self-contained compressor. Algorithms for the rate of output for the inspiratory flow were developed for each device. Patient flow patterns were divided into 5-ms epochs, and the expected deposition for each epoch was calculated from the algorithms. Summed over a breath, this allowed the calculation of the estimated deposition for each patient’s particular pattern of breathing.

Results: The rate of deposition was highest for the Pari LC Star and lowest for the Halolite. Rate of deposition was independent of respiratory pattern for the Pari LC Star and AeroEclipse, but proportional to respiratory rate for the Halolite. The differences between the Pari LC Star and AeroEclipse were less when driven by the 50-psi source. The AeroEclipse had the least amount of drug wastage. As designed, the Halolite delivered a predetermined amount of drug very accurately, whereas expected deposition when run to dryness of the other two devices had significant variations.

Conclusions: To minimize treatment time, the Pari LC Star would be best. To minimize drug wastage, the AeroEclipse would be best. To accurately deliver a specific drug dose, the Halolite would be best.

Figures in this Article

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543