ArticleDie Anaesthesiologie2026
[Aerosol therapy in spontaneously breathing tracheostomized patients: an in vitro study].
Article in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAerosol therapy is widely used in tracheostomized patients, particularly during prolonged weaning, to improve mucociliary clearance and manage bronchoconstriction; however, there is a lack of standardized guidelines to optimize nebulization therapy in this patient population. Different nebulizer types and interfaces can affect the efficiency of drug deposition, thereby affecting the therapeutic efficacy. Understanding these differences is essential to improve aerosol delivery strategies in clinical practice.
objectiveThis in vitro study aimed to evaluate the drug deposition rates of different aerosol generators and interfaces to determine the most effective combination for spontaneously breathing tracheostomized patients. Specifically, we compared the performance of a jet nebulizer and a vibrating mesh nebulizer in combination with different delivery interfaces: a face mask, a tracheostomy mask and a T-piece connected directly to the tracheostomy tube. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe study used an in vitro model simulating a spontaneously breathing tracheostomized patient. Drug deposition rates were measured using a jet nebulizer (Cirrus™ 2, Intersurgical Beatmungsgeräte GmbH, Sankt Augustin, Germany) and a vibrating mesh nebulizer (Aerogen® Solo, Aerogen Ltd., Galway, Ireland). The aerosol was delivered with the help of a face mask, a tracheal mask and a T-piece. The lung deposition rate was quantified gravimetrically by analyzing salbutamol deposition in a filter placed at the simulated airway.
resultsThe vibrating mesh nebulizer demonstrated the highest drug deposition rate (19.32 ± 4.29%) when used with a T-piece, significantly outperforming the jet nebulizer, which achieved its highest deposition rate (12.33 ± 1.38%) with a face mask (p = 0.008). The mesh nebulizer also achieved a higher deposition rate than the jet nebulizer when a tracheostomy mask was used (p = 0.023 with 1 l O
conclusionThe results suggest that the use of a vibrating mesh nebulizer connected directly to the tracheostomy tube via a T-piece can improve aerosol delivery efficiency in spontaneously breathing tracheostomized patients. The T‑piece functions as a small reservoir when a vibrating mesh nebulizer is used without additional oxygen supply, improving the deposition efficiency. Conversely, jet nebulizers require a continuous oxygen/air flow for operation; this can result in significant drug loss when used with a T-piece due to the continuous release of aerosol through the distal T‑piece opening. These findings are consistent with previous studies highlighting the benefits of mesh nebulizers in mechanically ventilated patients but extend this knowledge to spontaneously breathing tracheostomized individuals. Further clinical research is required to validate these in vitro results and to assess their impact on patient outcomes, secretion clearance and treatment efficacy in real-world settings.
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.