Albuterol delivery in an in vitro pediatric ventilator lung model: comparison of jet, ultrasonic, and mesh nebulizers.

OBJECTIVE: : To determine the influence of nebulizer types and nebulization modes on bronchodilator delivery in a mechanically ventilated pediatric lung model. DESIGN: : In vitro, laboratory study. SETTING: : Research laboratory of a university hospital. INTERVENTIONS: : Using albuterol as a marker, three nebulizer types (jet nebulizer, ultrasonic nebulizer, and vibrating-mesh nebulizer) were tested in three nebulization modes in a nonhumidified bench model mimicking the ventilatory pattern of a 10-kg infant. The amounts of albuterol deposited on the inspiratory filters (inhaled drug) at the end of the endotracheal tube, on the expiratory filters, and remaining in the nebulizers or in the ventilator circuit were determined. Particle size distribution of the nebulizers was also measured. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: : The inhaled drug was 2.8% ± 0.5% for the jet nebulizer, 10.5% ± 2.3% for the ultrasonic nebulizer, and 5.4% ± 2.7% for the vibrating-mesh nebulizer in intermittent nebulization during the inspiratory phase (p < 0.01). The most efficient nebulizer was the vibrating-mesh nebulizer in continuous nebulization (13.3% ± 4.6%, p < 0.01). Depending on the nebulizers, a variable but important part of albuterol was observed as remaining in the nebulizers (jet and ultrasonic nebulizers), or being expired or lost in the ventilator circuit (all nebulizers). Only small particles (range 2.39-2.70 µm) reached the end of the endotracheal tube. CONCLUSIONS: : Important differences between nebulizer types and nebulization modes were seen for albuterol deposition at the end of the endotracheal tube in an in vitro pediatric ventilator-lung model. New aerosol devices, such as ultrasonic and vibrating-mesh nebulizers, were more efficient than the jet nebulizer.

A temporal hierarchy for conspecific vocalization discrimination in humans.

The ability to discriminate conspecific vocalizations is observed across species and early during development. However, its neurophysiologic mechanism remains controversial, particularly regarding whether it involves specialized processes with dedicated neural machinery. We identified spatiotemporal brain mechanisms for conspecific vocalization discrimination in humans by applying electrical neuroimaging analyses to auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) in response to acoustically and psychophysically controlled nonverbal human and animal vocalizations as well as sounds of man-made objects. AEP strength modulations in the absence of topographic modulations are suggestive of statistically indistinguishable brain networks. First, responses were significantly stronger, but topographically indistinguishable to human versus animal vocalizations starting at 169-219 ms after stimulus onset and within regions of the right superior temporal sulcus and superior temporal gyrus. This effect correlated with another AEP strength modulation occurring at 291-357 ms that was localized within the left inferior prefrontal and precentral gyri. Temporally segregated and spatially distributed stages of vocalization discrimination are thus functionally coupled and demonstrate how conventional views of functional specialization must incorporate network dynamics. Second, vocalization discrimination is not subject to facilitated processing in time, but instead lags more general categorization by approximately 100 ms, indicative of hierarchical processing during object discrimination. Third, although differences between human and animal vocalizations persisted when analyses were performed at a single-object level or extended to include additional (man-made) sound categories, at no latency were responses to human vocalizations stronger than those to all other categories. Vocalization discrimination transpires at times synchronous with that of face discrimination but is not functionally specialized.

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.