Physicochemical aspects and efficiency of albuterol nebulization: comparison of three aerosol types in an in vitro pediatric model.

BACKGROUND: Advances in nebulizer design have produced both ultrasonic nebulizers and devices based on a vibrating mesh (vibrating mesh nebulizers), which are expected to enhance the efficiency of aerosol drug therapy. The aim of this study was to compare 4 different nebulizers, of 3 different types, in an in vitro model using albuterol delivery and physical characteristics as benchmarks. METHODS: The following nebulizers were tested: Sidestream Disposable jet nebulizer, Multisonic Infra Control ultrasonic nebulizer, and the Aerogen Pro and Aerogen Solo vibrating mesh nebulizers. Aerosol duration, temperature, and drug solution osmolality were measured during nebulization. Albuterol delivery was measured by a high-performance liquid chromatography system with fluorometric detection. The droplet size distribution was analyzed with a laser granulometer. RESULTS: The ultrasonic nebulizer was the fastest device based on the duration of nebulization; the jet nebulizer was the slowest. Solution temperature decreased during nebulization when the jet nebulizer and vibrating mesh nebulizers were used, but it increased with the ultrasonic nebulizer. Osmolality was stable during nebulization with the vibrating mesh nebulizers, but increased with the jet nebulizer and ultrasonic nebulizer, indicating solvent evaporation. Albuterol delivery was 1.6 and 2.3 times higher with the ultrasonic nebulizer and vibrating mesh nebulizers devices, respectively, than with the jet nebulizer. Particle size was significantly higher with the ultrasonic nebulizer. CONCLUSIONS: The in vitro model was effective for comparing nebulizer types, demonstrating important differences between nebulizer types. The new devices, both the ultrasonic nebulizers and vibrating mesh nebulizers, delivered more aerosolized drug than traditional jet nebulizers.

Prospective comparison of clinical prognostic scores in elderly patients with pulmonary embolism.

Background: The Geneva Prognostic Score (GPS), the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), and its simplified version (sPESI) are well known clinical prognostic scores for pulmonary embolism (PE).Objectives: To compare the prognostic performance of these scores in elderly patients with PE. Patients/Methods: In a multicenter Swiss cohort of elderly patients with venous thromboembolism, we prospectively studied 449 patients aged ≥65 years with symptomatic PE. The outcome was 30-day overall mortality. We dichotomized patients as low- vs. higher-risk in all three scores using the following thresholds: GPS scores ≤2 vs. >2, PESI risk classes I-II vs. III-V, and sPESI scores 0 vs. ≥1. We compared 30-day mortality in low- vs. higher-risk patients and the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Results: Overall, 3.8% of patients (17/449) died within 30 days. The GPS classified a greater proportion of patients as low risk (92% [413/449]) than the PESI (36.3% [163/449]) and the sPESI (39.6% [178/449]) (P<0.001 for each comparison). Low-risk patients based on the sPESI had a mortality of 0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0-2.1%) compared to 0.6% (95% CI 0-3.4%) for low-risk patients based on the PESI and 3.4% (95% CI 1.9-5.6%) for low-risk patients based on the GPS. The areas under the ROC curves were 0.77 (95%CI 0.72-0.81), 0.76 (95% CI 0.72-0.80), and 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75), respectively (P=0.47). Conclusions: In this cohort of elderly patients with PE, the GPS identified a higher proportion of patients as low-risk but the PESI and sPESI were more accurate in predicting mortality.