Introduction
Literature search strategy and results
Clinical evidence of trans-nasal aerosol delivery
Author, year | Study type | Patient | Inhaled medication | Comparison | Finding |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bräunlich and Wirtz 2018 [9] | RCT crossover | Adults: 26 stable COPD | Salbutamol 2.5 mg + ipratropium 0.5 mg | JN via HFNC at 35 L/min vs JN alone | FEV1 change: 9.4 ± 13.6 vs 11.1 ± 17.2%, p = 0.5 |
Réminiac et al., 2018 [10] | RCT crossover | Adults: 25 stable patients with reversible airflow obstruction | 2.5 mg albuterol | VMN via HFNC at 30 L/min vs JN with mask | FEV1 improvement: 0.33 (0.14, 0.39) vs 0.35 (0.18, 0.55) L, p = 0.11 |
Madney et al., 2019 [11] | RCT crossover | Adults: 12 stable COPD | 5 mg salbutamol | VMN via HFNC at 5 L/min vs JN via HFNC | Urinary salbutamol excretion at 30 min and 24 h were higher with VMN than JN via HFNC (p < 0.05) |
Li et al., 2019 [12] | Prospective dose response study | Adults: 42 stable asthma and COPD patients | Albuterol at an escalating dose of 0.5, 1.5, 3.5, and 7.5 mg | VMN via HFNC at 15–20 L/min vs MDI+Spacer | FEV1 increment at cumulative dose of 1.5 mg via HFNC was similar to 400 mcg albuterol via MDI+Spacer: 0.34 ± 0.18 vs. 0.34 ± 0.12 L, p = 0.878 |
Ammar et al., 2018 [13] | Retrospective | Adults: 29 patients with hypoxemia and PH | Epoprostenol | VMN via HFNC at 39 ± 11 L/min | PaO2/FIO2 improvement of 60 ± 50 mmHg |
Li et al., 2019 [14] | Retrospective | Adults: 11 ICU refractory hypoxemia patients comorbid with PH and/or RVD | Epoprostenol | VMN via HFNC at 35–40 L/min | 45.5% had SpO2/FIO2 improvement > 20% |
Li et al., 2020 [15] | Retrospective Cohort comparison | Adults: 51 ICU patients with PH and/or RVD | Epoprostenol | VMN via HFNC at constant flow (n = 26) vs flow titrated based on individual response to inhaled epoprostenol (n = 25) | The percentage of patients who met the criteria for a positive response was higher in the flow titration group compared to the group with constant flow (85.7% vs. 50%, p = 0.035). |
Morgan et al., 2015 [16] | Retrospective | Pediatrics: 5 infants acute bronchiolitis with respiratory distress | Albuterol | VMN via HFNC at 5–8 L/min vs JN and face mask | Compared to JN with mask, HR increment was higher after inhaling albuterol with VMN via HFNC; patient agitation was improved |
Valencia-Ramos et al., 2018 [17] | RCT crossover | Pediatrics: 6 infants with bronchiolitis | Albuterol | VMN via HFNC around 8 L/min vs JN with mask | Increased level of comfort and satisfaction |
Al-Subu et al., 2020 [18] | Retrospective | Pediatrics: 28 children with asthma or bronchiolitis | Albuterol | VMN via HFNC at 2–4 L/min vs VMN with mask | HR increased by 9.98 (95% CI 3.72–16.2) with VMN via HFNC vs 0.64 (95% CI, 1.65–2.93) beats/min with VMN via mask (p < 0.001) |
Baudin et al., 2017 [19] | Retrospective | Pediatrics: 39 status asthmaticus (10 had severe acidosis at admission) | Albuterol | VMN via HFNC at maximum 1 L/kg/min vs standard oxygen without HFNC | In HFNC group, HR (165 ± 21 vs. 141 ± 25/min, p < 0.01) and RR (40 ± 13 vs. 31 ± 8/min, p < 0.01) decreased, and blood gas improved in the first 24 h |
Adult patients: inhaled albuterol delivery via HFNC
Adult patients: inhaled epoprostenol delivery via HFNC
Pediatric patients: inhaled albuterol delivery via HFNC
Summary
Factors influencing trans-nasal aerosol delivery
Aerosol generator: VMN vs JN
Publication | Study type | Population | Flow (L/min) | Inhaled dose (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
JN | VMN | ||||
Réminiac et al., 2017 [38] | In vivo | Infant | 8 | 0.03 ± 0.03 | 0.09 ± 0.04 |
In vitro | 0.46 ± 0.12 | 0.52 ± 0.23 | |||
Ari, 2019 [33] | In vitro | Infant | 6 | 1.45 ± 0.10 | 2.35 ± 0.30 |
Pediatric | 6 | 2.46 ± 0.10 | 5.37 ± 0.70 | ||
Madney et al., 2019 [11] | In vivo | Adult | 5 | 7.90 ± 3.10 | 12.20 ± 4.40 |
Dugernier et al., 2017 [41] | In vivo | Adult | 30 | 1.0 (0.70–2.0) | 3.60 (2.10–4.40) |
Aerosol carrier
HFNC gas flow and patient’s inspiratory flow
Patient | Study type | Author | Nebulizer position | Collection filter placement | Breathing pattern | Inspiratory flow (IF) | Gas flow (GF) | GF: IF | Inhaled dose (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adult | In vitro | Réminiac et al., 2016 [26] | Inlet of humidifier | Trachea | Quiet breathing: Vt 500 mL, RR 15 bpm, I:E = 1:1, Ti 2 s | 15 | 30.0 | 2.0 | 6.70 |
45.0 | 3.0 | 3.50 | |||||||
60.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | |||||||
Distressed breathing: Vt 750 mL, RR 30 bpm, I:E = 1:1, Ti 1 s | 45 | 30.0 | 0.67 | 10.30 | |||||
45.0 | 1.0 | 6.70 | |||||||
60.0 | 1.33 | 5.10 | |||||||
Dailey et al., 2017 [27] | Inlet of humidifier | Nasal prongs | Quiet breathing: Vt 500 mL, RR 16 bpm, I:E = 1:2, Ti 1.25 s | 24 | 10.0 | 0.42 | 26.70 ± 1.30 | ||
30.0 | 1.25 | 11.60 ± 1.20 | |||||||
50.0 | 2.08 | 3.50 ± 0.20 | |||||||
Distressed breathing: Vt 750 mL, RR 30 bpm, I:E = 1:1, Ti 1 s | 45 | 10.0 | 0.22 | 13.0 ± 3.0 | |||||
30.0 | 0.67 | 33.0 ± 5.0 | |||||||
50.0 | 1.11 | 25.0 ± 2.0 | |||||||
McGrath et al., 2019 [44] | Outlet of humidifier | Trachea | Quiet breathing: Vt 500 mL, RR 15 bpm, I:E = 1:1, Ti 2 s | 15 | 10.0 | 0.67 | 5.35 ± 2.81 | ||
40.0 | 2.67 | 2.56 ± 1.38 | |||||||
60.0 | 4.0 | 1.01 ± 0.26 | |||||||
In vivo | Alcoforado et al., 2019 [42] | Inlet of humidifier | NA | Normal healthy volunteer, quiet breathing (n = 23) | NA | 10.0 | NA | 17.23 ± 6.78 | |
30.0 | NA | 5.71 ± 2.04 | |||||||
50.0 | NA | 3.46 ± 1.24 | |||||||
Pediatric | In vitro | Ari et al., 2011 [23] | Inlet of humidifier | Nasal prong | Infant quiet breathing: Vt 100 ml, RR 20 bpm, I:E 1:2 | 6 | 3.0 | 0.5 | 10.65 ± 0.51 |
6.0 | 1.0 | 1.95 ± 0.50 | |||||||
Réminiac et al., 2017 [38] | Inlet of humidifier | Trachea | Infant quiet breathing: Vt 25 mL, RR 40 bpm, I:E 1:2 | 3 | 2.0 | 0.67 | 4.15 ± 1.75 | ||
4.0 | 1.33 | 3.29 ± 1.70 | |||||||
8.0 | 2.67 | 0.52 ± 0.23 | |||||||
Ari, 2019 [33] | Inlet of humidifier | Trachea | Child quiet breathing: Vt 250 mL, RR 20 bpm, Ti 1 s | 15 | 4.0 | 0.27 | 8.64 ± 1.20 | ||
6.0 | 0.40 | 5.37 ± 0.70 | |||||||
Infant quiet breathing: Vt 100 mL, RR 30 bpm, Ti 0.7 s | 8.6 | 4.0 | 0.47 | 3.27 ± 0.40 | |||||
6.0 | 0.70 | 2.35 ± 0.30 | |||||||
In vivo | Réminiac et al., 2017 [38] | Inlet of humidifier | NA | Macaque (n = 3) | NA | 2.0 | NA | 0.85 ± 0.57 | |
4.0 | NA | 0.49 ± 0.44 | |||||||
8.0 | NA | 0.09 ± 0.04 | |||||||
Corcoran et al., 2019 [40] | After a corrugated tubing segment | NA | Infants (n = 18) | NA | 2.0 | NA | 4.50 ± 2.20 | ||
0.2 | NA | 33.50 ± 13.0 |
Gas density: oxygen vs heliox
Dry vs heated humidified gas
Nebulizer placement: close to patient vs at the inlet of humidifier
Open mouth vs closed mouth breathing
Delivery technique
Continuous administration using infusion pump vs unit dose
High vs low albuterol concentration
Aerosol generation: breathing synchronized vs continuous
Other aerosol delivery methods during HFNC treatment
Nebulizer or MDI+spacer with vs without concurrent HFNC
Aerosol delivery via HFNC vs conventional aerosol delivery
Author, year | Patient | HFNC gas flow setting (L/min) | Flow setting for conventional nebulizer (L/min) | Inhaled dose (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aerosol delivery via HFNC | JN with mask | VMN with mask | ||||
Ari, 2019 [33] | Child | 6 | 6 | 5.37 ± 0.7 | 5.76 ± 0.10 | 11.26 ± 1.90 |
4 | 8.64 ± 1.2 | |||||
Infant | 6 | 6 | 2.35 ± 0.3 | 3.83 ± 0.50 | 7.20 ± 0.60 | |
4 | 3.27 ± 0.4 | |||||
Li et al., 2019 [37] | Child | 25 | 8 | 2.84 ± 0.20 | 2.99 ± 0.41 | 3.65 ± 0.16 |
3.75 | 2 | 11.57 ± 0.43 | NA | 3.82 ± 0.07 | ||
Réminiac et al., 2017 [38] | Infant | 8 | 6 | 0.09 ± 0.04 | 0.71 ± 0.23 | NA |
4 | 0.49 ± 0.44 | |||||
2 | 0.85 ± 0.57 | |||||
Toddler | 8 | 6 | 0.52 ± 0.33 | 1.66 ± 0.06 | NA | |
4 | 3.29 ± 1.70 | |||||
2 | 4.15 ± 1.75 | |||||
Bennett et al., 2019 [32] | Adult | 50 | 8 | 6.81 ± 0.45 | 9.07 ± 0.26 | NA |
6 | NA | NA | 36.21 ± 0.78 |
Other considerations in the in vitro studies
Airway model and placement of collecting filter
Studies | Population | Breathing pattern | HFNC flow (L/min) | Inhaled dose (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trachea | Nasal cannula | ||||
Adult | Distressed breathing Vt 750 mL, RR 30 bpm, I:E = 1:1, Ti 1 s, inspiratory flow 45 L/min | 30 | 10.3 | 13.0 ± 3.0 | |
45 | 6.7 | 33.0 ± 5.0 | |||
60 | 5.1 | 25.0 ± 2.0 | |||
Adult | Quiet breathing: Vt 500 mL, RR 15 bpm, I:E = 1:1, Ti 2 s, inspiratory flow 15 L/min | 10 | 5.4 ± 2.8 | 26.7 ± 1.3 |
Breathing profiles
Safety of trans-nasal aerosol on the nasal epithelium
Environmental contamination
Summary
Clinical implications and recommendations: trans-nasal aerosol delivery strategies for different patients
Techniques for aerosol delivery with HFNC | Recommendations | Evidence resource |
---|---|---|
Aerosol generator | VMN is more efficient than jet nebulizer when placed in-line with HFNC | |
Discontinue HFNC treatment to deliver conventional aerosol treatment | Not recommended. | In vitro adult [32]. |
Use conventional aerosol device with concurrent HFNC | Not recommended. | Adult in vitro [32] Pediatric in vitro [34] |
Nebulizer placement | VMN should be placed at the inlet of humidifier, except when gas flow is extremely low, such as ≤ 0.25 L/kg/min for infants | |
Gas flow setting during trans-nasal aerosol delivery | If possible, titrate HFNC gas flow below the patient’s inspiratory flow | Adult in vivo [42] |
Open mouth breathing during trans-nasal aerosol delivery | When gas flow exceeds patient inspiratory flow, open mouth breathing reduces inhaled dose; when gas flow is below the patient’s inspiratory flow, open mouth breathing could generate higher inhaled dose. | Adult in vitro [26] Pediatric in vitro [37] |
Use heliox to deliver aerosol via HFNC | Might be considered for pediatric patients | Adult in vitro study [27] Pediatric in vitro [23] |
Use dry gas to deliver aerosol via HFNC | Not recommended | adult in vivo [42] |
Using frequent unit doses or infusion pump to deliver continuous albuterol for asthma exacerbation | If possible, use unit dose to deliver albuterol and decrease gas flow during nebulization; return flow to original setting when nebulization is completed. Titrate FIO2 to maintain SpO2 during the periods of flow reduction. If infusion pump has to be used, relative low gas flow and a higher nominal dose could be considered. | Pediatric in vitro [37] |
Stable COPD | Standard dose (2.5 mg) of albuterol is sufficient to elicit bronchodilation responses with HFNC gas flow set at 15–20 L/min. | |
COPD exacerbation | Standard dose (2.5 mg) of albuterol as a starting dose with HFNC flow set at 20–30 L/min is recommended during trans-nasal aerosol delivery. | |
Pulmonary hypertension without hypoxemia | HFNC flow set at 5–10 L/min is recommended | Adult in vivo [15] |
Pulmonary hypertension with refractory hypoxemia | Titrating HFNC flow at bedside based on patient’s response in order to determine the optimal flow for each individual patient is recommended | Adult in vivo [15] |