BACKGROUND: Nebulizers are commonly used in emergency departments to deliver bronchodilators to children with asthma exacerbations. However, no clinical study comparing a vibrating mesh nebulizer with a jet nebulizer is available in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of a vibrating mesh nebulizer to a jet nebulizer combined with a mouthpiece or mask in children with asthma exacerbations admitted to the emergency department. METHODS: We conducted a single-blinded randomized clinical trial of 217 children (2-18 y old) with a moderate to severe asthma exacerbation in the emergency department. Assessment of severity was defined by our acute asthma score, adapted from the Pediatric Asthma Score. Subjects were randomized to receive bronchodilator treatment via vibrating mesh nebulizer (n 5 108) or jet nebulizer (n 5 109) and were treated until they achieved a mild asthma score and were discharged or until a decision to admit was made. All subjects were treated per our acute asthma clinical pathway algorithm for the emergency department with modifications to allow for blinding, assessment of treatment, and data collection. Outcome variables included hospital admission rate, number of treatments, and time to mild asthma score. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in baseline asthma score between subjects treated with the vibrating mesh nebulizer and those treated with the jet nebulizer (P 5 .042), but no other significant differences in demographics existed between groups. To adjust for effect of baseline asthma score, a multiple logistic regression model was used to model admission. The vibrating mesh nebulizer group had a lower probability of being admitted to the hospital (P 5 .062), and they required significantly fewer treatments (P < .001) and less time to reach a mild asthma score (P 5 .004) than those in the jet nebulizer group. In subjects with a mask interface, the vibrating mesh nebulizer significantly reduced the probability of admission (P 5 .032). CONCLUSIONS: Subjects treated with a vibrating mesh nebulizer required significantly fewer treatments and less time to achieve a mild asthma score. In subjects with a mask interface, the vibrating mesh nebulizer significantly reduced the probability of admission compared to jet nebulizer. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02774941.

Background Use of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) to deliver aerosolized medications to children has gained considerable interest. However, data on continuous albuterol delivery (CAD) via HFNC are lacking. This study quantified CAD via HFNC/vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN) and large‐volume jet nebulizer (LVN) with face mask (FM) in a pediatric model. Aerosol delivery with two HFNC cannula designs were also compared. Methods A pediatric manikin was connected to a lung simulator (Vt = 150 mL, RR = 28 breaths/minute, I:E 1:2.4) via collecting filter at the carina. XL Pediatric and SML Adult HFNC designs were tested to determine optimal cannula design for CAD. VMN was placed Before humidifier (37°C), albuterol (5 mg/mL) was nebulized at 3, 6, and 12 L/minute (n = 3). To compare HFNC/VMN with LVN and FM, albuterol (15 mg/hour) was aerosolized for 3 hours/device (n = 3). LVN was connected to FM and filled with 9 mL of albuterol (5 mg/mL) and 66 mL of normal saline to deliver 25 mL/hour at 13 L/minute. VMN was connected to the infusion pump to deliver 7.5 mL/hr of albuterol (2 mg/mL). Drug eluted from filters was assayed with UV spectrophotometry (276 nm). Results Optimal aerosol delivery occurred at 3 L/minute (12.6% ± 0.5%) with SML Adult HFNC (P = .04). When used for CAD, inhaled drug delivery with HFNC/VMN (2.2 mg/hr ± 0.1, 14.8% ± 0.7%) was significantly greater than LVN and FM (0.48 ± 0.09 mg/hour, 3.2% ± 0.6%) (P = .001). Conclusions Administration of CAD via HFNC/VMN led to a greater than fourfold increase in drug delivery compared to LVN with FM. Optimal aerosol delivery occurred at 3 L/minute with SML Adult HFNC.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract