| Literature DB >> 31266508 |
F Bianco1, F Ricci1, C Catozzi1, X Murgia2, M Schlun3, A Bucholski3, U Hetzer3, S Bonelli1, M Lombardini1, E Pasini1, M Nutini1, M Pertile1, S Minocchieri4, M Simonato5, B Rosa1, G Pieraccini6, G Moneti6, L Lorenzini7, S Catinella1, G Villetti1, M Civelli1, B Pioselli1, P Cogo8, V Carnielli9, C Dani10, F Salomone1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-invasive delivery of nebulized surfactant has been a neonatology long-pursued goal. Nevertheless, the clinical efficacy of nebulized surfactant remains inconclusive, in part, due to the great technical challenges of depositing nebulized drugs in the lungs of preterm infants. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of delivering nebulized surfactant (poractant alfa) in vitro and in vivo with an adapted, neonate-tailored aerosol delivery strategy.Entities:
Keywords: CPAP; Nebulized surfactant; Nebulizer; Neonatal ventilation; Poractant alfa; Respiratory distress syndrome; eFlow-Neos
Year: 2019 PMID: 31266508 PMCID: PMC6604359 DOI: 10.1186/s12931-019-1096-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Respir Res ISSN: 1465-9921
Fig. 1(a) Scheme of the experimental setup. (b) Mass median diameter (MMD) of nebulized surfactant measured by laser diffraction under different relative humidity (RH) conditions. (c) Fine particle fraction (FPF) of nebulized surfactant under different RH conditions. (d) Mean cumulative percentage of deposited surfactant within the different setup compartments (n = 5) and cumulative percentage of deposited surfactant for individual experiments, each of them conducted with independent nebulizer units. * P vs. RH 30% < 0.01
Fig. 2Mean PaO2 (a), PaCO2 (b), and pH (c) values over time in surfactant-depleted adult rabbits treated with nasal continuous positive pressure ventilation (nCPAP, black squares), with intratracheal surfactant (Inst-SURF, white squares), or with different doses of nebulized surfactant (Neb-SURF100, up-pointing triangles; Neb-SURF200, down-pointing triangles; Neb-SURF400, right-pointing triangles; and Neb-SURF600, left-pointing triangles). Values are shown as the mean ± SD. * P vs. nCPAP < 0.01; # P vs. Inst-SURF < 0.05
Fig. 3Box-plots showing (a) the oxygenation index (OI) and (b) ventilation efficacy index (VEI) at baseline (from all animals), after inducing a respiratory distress (Post BALs, from all animals) and 180 min after treatment with just nasal continuous positive pressure ventilation (nCPAP), with different doses of nebulized surfactant (Neb-SURF100, Neb-SURF200, Neb-SURF400, Neb-SURF600) or with intratracheal surfactant (Inst-SURF). The boxes encompass the 25–75 percentiles. The horizontal line within the boxes represents the median. The whiskers indicate the maximum and minimum values observed for each group. * P vs. nCPA P < 0.01; # P vs. Inst-SURF < 0.05
Fig. 4Box-plots showing dynamic compliance (Cdyn) at baseline (from all animals), after inducing a respiratory distress (Post BALs, from all animals) and 180 min after treatment with just nasal continuous positive pressure ventilation (nCPAP), with different doses of nebulized surfactant (Neb-SURF100, Neb-SURF200, Neb-SURF400, and Neb-SURF600) or with intratracheal surfactant (Inst-SURF). The boxes encompass the 25–75 percentiles. The horizontal line within the boxes represents the median. The whiskers indicate the maximum and minimum values observed for each group. The whiskers indicate the maximum and minimum values observed for each group. * P vs. nCPAP < 0.05