Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29058607›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2017

Aerosol delivery during invasive mechanical ventilation: a systematic review.

Jonathan Dugernier, Stephan Ehrmann, Thierry Sottiaux, Jean Roeseler, Xavier Wittebole, Thierry Dugernier, François Jamar, Pierre-François Laterre, Gregory Reychler

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Pulmonary drug delivery for acute respiratory distress syndrome.Pulmonary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2023
    Review
  17. AnFrontiers in medicine · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jonathan DugernierInstitut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Pneumologie, ORL & Dermatologie, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium. Jonathan.dugernier@uclouvain.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6567-8523
Stephan EhrmannUniversité François Rabelais, UMR 1100, F-37032, Tours, France.
Thierry SottiauxSoins Intensifs, Clinique Notre-Dame de Grace, Chaussée de Nivelles 212, 6041, Charleroi, Belgium.
Jean RoeselerSoins Intensifs, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Xavier WitteboleSoins Intensifs, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Thierry DugernierSoins Intensifs, Clinique Saint-Pierre, Avenue Reine Fabiola 9, 1340, Ottignies, Belgium.
François JamarMédecine Nucléaire, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Pierre-François LaterreSoins Intensifs, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Gregory ReychlerInstitut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Pneumologie, ORL & Dermatologie, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BEClinique Saint Pierre · BEUniversité de Tours · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis systematic review aimed to assess inhaled drug delivery in mechanically ventilated patients or in animal models. Whole lung and regional deposition and the impact of the ventilator circuit, the artificial airways and the administration technique for aerosol delivery were analyzed.

methodsIn vivo studies assessing lung deposition during invasive mechanical ventilation were selected based on a systematic search among four databases. Two investigators independently assessed the eligibility and the risk of bias.

resultsTwenty-six clinical and ten experimental studies were included. Between 30% and 43% of nominal drug dose was lost to the circuit in ventilated patients. Whole lung deposition of up to 16% and 38% of nominal dose (proportion of drug charged in the device) were reported with nebulizers and metered-dose inhalers, respectively. A penetration index inferior to 1 observed in scintigraphic studies indicated major proximal deposition. However, substantial concentrations of antibiotics were measured in the epithelial lining fluid (887 (406-12,819) μg/mL of amikacin) of infected patients and in sub-pleural specimens (e.g., 197 μg/g of amikacin) dissected from infected piglets, suggesting a significant distal deposition. The administration technique varied among studies and may explain a degree of the variability of deposition that was observed.

conclusionsLung deposition was lower than 20% of nominal dose delivered with nebulizers and mostly occurred in proximal airways. Further studies are needed to link substantial concentrations of antibiotics in infected pulmonary fluids to pulmonary deposition. The administration technique with nebulizers should be improved in ventilated patients in order to ensure an efficient but safe, feasible and reproducible technique.

Indexed as

Administration, InhalationAerosolsDrug Delivery SystemsHumansLungRespiration, ArtificialAerosolsAntibioticsBronchodilatorsNebulizerScintigraphy

Identifiers

PMID29058607
PMCPMC5651640
OpenAlexW2766174994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.