Assessment of a Valved Holding Chamber for Delivering Inhaled Medication Through a Tracheostomy Tube in a Tidal Breathing Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale: Limited data is available regarding the efficiency of inhaled drug delivery devices despite their widespread use in spontaneously breathing trach patients. We compared patient dose achieved with different devices, inhalation techniques, tracheostomy tube (TT) sizes and breathing patterns using a spontaneously breathing trach model. Methods: Albuterol (Ventolin™, 2-actuations) was delivered to the model via 2 different valved holding chambers (VHC, AEROTRACH PLUS® Anti-Static VHC and PARI® VORTEX® Tracheo Non-Electrostatic Holding Chamber) via 4.5mm or 8.0mm TTs. The tracheostomy adapter of each VHC was attached to the 15mm adapter of the TT. A filter was placed between the exit of the TT and a breathing simulator (ASL5000) programmed to replicate tidal breathing (155cc, 25BPM, 1:2 I:E Ratio or 500cc, 13BPM, 1:2 I:E Ratio). The contents of each filter were assayed for albuterol by HPLC-UV spectrophotometry. Results: Table 1 below illustrates delivered mass of albuterol (µg) to the end of the TT. Conclusion: The choice of a metered-dose inhaler / VHC delivery system can significantly influence treatment efficacy. This study demonstrated that the AEROTRACH PLUS® Anti-Static VHC provided superior delivery of albuterol compared to the PARI® VORTEX® Tracheo Non-Electrostatic Holding Chamber (p<0.001). Optimizing lung deposition with the AEROTRACH PLUS® spacer may lead to faster symptom relief and potentially reduce the required number of actuations and cost of treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".