Comparison of the Application of Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer and Jet Nebulizer in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/copd.s452191
2024-03-29
International Journal of COPD
Abstract:Zhouzhou Feng, 1 Zhengcai Han, 1 Yaqin Wang, 1 Hong Guo, 1 Jian Liu 1, 2 1 The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou City, People's Republic of China; 2 Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital/Gansu Central Hospital, Lanzhou City, People's Republic of China Correspondence: Jian Liu, Department of Clinical Medicine, the First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, No. 1, Donggang West Road, Chengguan District, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, People's Republic of China, Tel +86 136 0935 4197, Email Objective: To comparison of the application of Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer and Jet Nebulizer in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Research Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statements. The primary outcome measures analyzed included: The amount of inhaler in the urine sample at 30 minutes after inhalation therapy (USAL0.5), The total amount of inhaler in urine sample within 24 hours (USAL24), Aerosol emitted, Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 ), Forced vital capacity (FVC). Results: Ten studies were included with a total of 314 study participants, including 157 subjects in the VMN group and 157 subjects in the JN group. The data analysis results of USAL0.5, MD (1.88 [95% CI, 0.95 to 2.81], P = 0.000), showed a statistically significant difference. USAL24, MD (1.61 [95% CI, 1.14 to 2.09], P = 0.000), showed a statistically significant difference. The results of aerosol emitted showed a statistically significant difference in MD (3.44 [95% CI, 2.84 to 4.04], P = 0.000). The results of FEV 1 showed MD (0.05 [95% CI, − 0.24 to 0.35], P=0.716), the results were not statistically significant. The results of FVC showed MD (0.11 [95% CI, − 0.18 to 0.41], P=0.459), the results were not statistically significant. It suggests that VMN is better than JN and provides higher aerosols, but there is no difference in improving lung function between them. Conclusion: VMN is significantly better than JN in terms of drug delivery and utilization in the treatment of patients with COPD. However, in the future use of nebulizers, it is important to select a matching nebulizer based on a combination of factors such as mechanism of action of the nebulizer, disease type and comorbidities, ventilation strategies and modes, drug formulations, as well as cost-effectiveness, in order to achieve the ideal treatment of COPD. Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, aerosol, vibrating mesh nebulizers, jet nebulizers, meta-analysis Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common, poorly reversible and often progressive airflow obstruction characterized by persistent airway inflammation, the pathogenesis of which may be related to smoking, endothelial dysfunction, abnormalities in airway and alveolar structure and function, inflammation and genetic factors. 1,2 Due to the exponential increase in morbidity and mortality, it places an enormous burden on society and the health system. 3 Up to now, although there is no cure for COPD, effective treatments aim to stabilize the disease, mitigate its progression, and reduce the risk of acute exacerbations and hospitalizations. Nebulizers, used primarily for aerosol therapy, agitate the liquid medication to create small aerosol droplets that rapidly deliver the medication directly to the lungs, allowing for topical drug delivery for the local treatment of respiratory diseases. Aerosol therapy is considered to be effective in the management of lung diseases, including asthma, COPD, cystic fibrosis or pneumonia, and its main advantages are rapid onset of action, lower doses, higher lung concentrations and lower systemic side effects. 4,5 Based on their working principle, nebulizers can be classified into three types, ie, jet nebulizers (JN), ultrasonic nebulizers and vibrating mesh nebulizers (VMN). 6 JNs are the standard and least costly devices for inhaled drugs, but they require a large amount of external medical gas to produce aerosols and are relatively wasteful, resulting in limited dosage, while VMN is not. 7–9 It has been reported that >50% of the nebulized drug volume is retained in JNs and tubes with lower lung deposition, which proves the inefficiency of JNs. 10,11 On the other hand, compressor-based jet nebulizer systems are inconvenient for patients as they require additional tubing, heavy compressors and longer treatment times. 12,13 VMN is a new, quiet, portable, time-saving nebulizer that has been developed for invasive and NIV, high-flow nasal cannula, and -Abstract Truncated-
respiratory system