ArticleRespiratory care2023
The Impact of Various High-Flow Nasal Cannula Devices on Transnasal Aerosol Delivery.
Article in Respiratory care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Personalized Nasal Protective Devices: Importance and Perspectives.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAerosol delivery via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has gained popularity due to the increased use of the modality for treating hypoxemic and hypercapnic respiratory failure. Various HFNC devices are available in the United States; however, the effectiveness of aerosol delivery via HFNC devices remains unclear. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the impact of various commercially available devices on transnasal aerosol delivery.
methodsThis was a bench study that used a 2-chamber lung model, in which one chamber was connected to an adult manikin with anatomically correct upper-airway proportions. The other chamber was connected to a critical care ventilator used to simulate spontaneous breathing. A size large nasal cannula was placed at the nasal opening of the manikin. Five different HFNC devices (Hamilton-C1, OptiFlow, Airvo2, V60 Plus, and Vapotherm) were compared. Four flow settings were used on each device, with a vibrating mesh nebulizer placed at the humidifier. Salbutamol (2.5 mg/3 mL) was used during the experiments to quantify inhaled drug doses. A collection filter was placed between the manikin's trachea and the lung model. The drug was eluted from the filter and assayed with ultraviolet spectrophotometry (276 nm).
resultsAmong the 5 HFNC devices, OptiFlow had the highest inhaled dose at 10 L/min (mean ± SD 18.2% ± 1.2%). At 20 L/min, the Hamilton-C1 (mean ± SD 13.5% ± 0.4%) performed marginally better than the OptiFlow (mean ± SD 12.6% ± 1.9%) and Airvo2 (mean ± SD 12.8% ± 1%). At high flow settings (40-60 L/min), the inhaled dose of Hamilton-C1 was 2-3 times that of the Airvo2 and V60 Plus. When compared with the other devices, the mean inhaled dose with the Vapotherm was lower (0.9-2.5%). In all devices, the inhaled dose decreased as the flow increased.
conclusionsTransnasal aerosol delivery was significantly impacted by the types of HFNC devices and flow settings. Nominal doses might need to be adjusted if changing HFNC devices or flow is not an option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.