Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41180103›Full record

ArticleJournal of intensive medicine2025

Practice pattern of aerosol drug therapy in ARDS patients: A secondary analysis of the Aero-in-ICU study.

Sanjay Singhal, Sai Saran, Krupal Joshi, Mohan Gurjar, Parnandi Bhaskar Rao, Jyoti Narayan Sahoo, Ruchi Dua, Alok Kumar Sahoo, Ankur Sharma, Sonika Agarwal and 11 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of intensive medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07269743 (To OBSERVE PRACTISE OF AEROSOL THERAPY IN ARDS PATIENTS), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT07269743 recruitingnot on this map

To OBSERVE PRACTISE OF AEROSOL THERAPY IN ARDS PATIENTS (AERO-IN-ARDS)

TypeobservationalSponsorTS Misra Medical CollegeRan2025 to 2026Enrolled423ConditionsARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome) Receiving IMVArmsTypes of drugs being delivered as aerosol therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

21 authors.

Sanjay SinghalDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Sai SaranDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Krupal JoshiDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rajkot, Gujarat, India.
Mohan GurjarDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Parnandi Bhaskar RaoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Jyoti Narayan SahooDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Apollo Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Ruchi DuaDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.
Alok Kumar SahooDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Ankur SharmaDepartment of Trauma and Emergency (Anesthesia and Critical Care), All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.
Sonika AgarwalDepartment of Care Medicine, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Swami Rama Himalayan University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India.
Arun SharmaDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Rukmani Birla Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
Pralay Shankar GhoshDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Nikhil KothariDepartment of Trauma and Emergency (Anesthesia and Critical Care), All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.
Kunal DeokarDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rajkot, Gujarat, India.
Sudipta MukherjeeDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Prakhar SharmaDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.
Bps SreedeviDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Prakash SivaramakrishnanDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.
Umadri SinghDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Dhivya SundaramDepartment of Trauma and Emergency (Anesthesia and Critical Care), All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.
Avinash AgrawalDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The potential role of aerosol drug therapy (ADT) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains uncertain. The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence and practice patterns of ADT in patients with ARDS. Methods: This secondary analysis of a prospective observational multi-centric cohort study done in critically ill patients to know the ADT practice pattern was conducted in nine participating intensive care units (ICUs) across India between November 2022 and March 2023. The study recruited newly admitted adult patients (age >18 years) who had an artificial airway and required mechanical ventilation (invasive or non‑invasive). These patients were followed up for the next 14 days or until ICU discharge or death. This secondary analysis collected data about screened patients with ARDS, related to each aerosol therapy including ongoing respiratory support, type of drug, and aerosol‑generating device, including ongoing respiratory support, type of drug, and aerosol‑generating device. Results: Fifty-three (24.3%) of the 218 patients had ARDS, with a mean age of (60.2±14.8) years. At admission, the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score of the recruited patients were 17.4±7.1 and 7.7±4.0, respectively. Respiratory support was provided with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) alone, non-invasive ventilation (NIV) alone, or both in 45.3%, 24.5%, and 30.2% of patients, respectively. The mean duration of the ICU stay was (6.4 ± 4.0) days. Of the 53 patients with ARDS, 51 (96.2%) received 1285 aerosol sessions during follow-up for 330 patient days. Of all patients with ARDS who received aerosol therapy, 71.4% were prescribed while on IMV and 25.7% on NIV. A single drug was used in 60.7% of the aerosol sessions used a single drug, and 39.3% were prescribed combination drugs. Shorter-acting bronchodilators were the predominant drugs, with jet nebulizers (55.4%) being the most commonly used aerosol generators. These were followed by ultrasonic (23.1%) and vibrating-mesh nebulizers (21.5 %). During IMV, only in 50.1% of aerosol sessions (460 out of 918) was an aerosol generator placed at the optimum position (15-30 cm away from the Y-junction). Conclusions: Aerosol therapy is frequently used in ARDS, with bronchodilators being the most common drug. The jet nebulizer is the most familiar aerosol-generating device, but only half of the aerosol sessions are at the optimum position during invasive mechanical ventilation.

Indexed as

AerosolsARDSBronchodilator agentsCritical illnessNebulizersRespiratory insufficiency

Identifiers

PMID41180103
PMCPMC12572853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.