Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27162615›Full record

ArticlePulmonary circulation2016

Iloprost drug delivery during infant conventional and high-frequency oscillatory ventilation.

Robert M DiBlasi, Dave N Crotwell, Shuijie Shen, Jiang Zheng, James B Fink, Delphine Yung

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pulmonary circulation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Inhaled Treprostinil Drug Delivery During Mechanical Ventilation and Spontaneous Breathing Using Two Different Nebulizers.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2017
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Robert M DiBlasiRespiratory Therapy Department, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington, USA; Seattle Children's Hospital Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Dave N CrotwellRespiratory Therapy Department, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Shuijie ShenSeattle Children's Hospital Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Jiang ZhengSeattle Children's Hospital Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
James B FinkJames B. Fink, LLC, San Mateo, California, USA.
Delphine YungDepartment of Cardiology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Seattle Children's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Iloprost is a selective pulmonary vasodilator approved for inhalation by the Food and Drug Administration. Iloprost has been increasingly used in the management of critically ill neonates with hypoxic lung disease. This in vitro study was designed to test the hypothesis that aerosol drug delivery could be effectively administered to infants with both conventional ventilation and high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV). A neonatal test lung model configured with newborn lung mechanics was ventilated with a conventional ventilator and an HFOV with standard settings. A vibrating-mesh nebulizer was placed (1) proximal to the patient airway in the inspiratory limb between the humidifier probe and patient wye (conventional) as well as between the vent circuit and the endotracheal tube (ETT) for HFOV and (2) between the ventilator and humidifier (distal). Iloprost was nebulized in three separate runs using three new nebulizers in each of the circuit locations. A collecting filter was placed at the distal end of the ETT for each trial. Iloprost was quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography. The percentage of nominal dose delivered was greater with the nebulizer placed proximal to the airway for conventional ventilation (10.74% ± 2%) and HFOV (29% ± 2%) than with it placed in the distal position (2.96% ± 0.2% vs. 0.96% ± 0.8%, respectively; P < 0.05). Drug delivery in proximal position was nearly threefold greater during HFOV than during conventional ventilation. In conclusion, iloprost drug delivery was best achieved when the nebulizer was placed proximal to the patient airway during neonatal mechanical ventilation. Drug delivery appears to be more efficient during HFOV than during conventional ventilation.

Indexed as

high-frequency ventilationinfant hypoxic lung diseaseinhaled pulmonary vasodilationneonatal ventilationpediatric aerosol delivery

Identifiers

PMID27162615
PMCPMC4860545
OpenAlexW2267640498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.