Aerosol therapy in adult critically ill patients: a consensus statement regarding aerosol administration strategies during various modes of respiratory support
- PMID: 37436585
- PMCID: PMC10338422
- DOI: 10.1186/s13613-023-01147-4
Aerosol therapy in adult critically ill patients: a consensus statement regarding aerosol administration strategies during various modes of respiratory support
Abstract
Background: Clinical practice of aerosol delivery in conjunction with respiratory support devices for critically ill adult patients remains a topic of controversy due to the complexity of the clinical scenarios and limited clinical evidence.
Objectives: To reach a consensus for guiding the clinical practice of aerosol delivery in patients receiving respiratory support (invasive and noninvasive) and identifying areas for future research.
Methods: A modified Delphi method was adopted to achieve a consensus on technical aspects of aerosol delivery for adult critically ill patients receiving various forms of respiratory support, including mechanical ventilation, noninvasive ventilation, and high-flow nasal cannula. A thorough search and review of the literature were conducted, and 17 international participants with considerable research involvement and publications on aerosol therapy, comprised a multi-professional panel that evaluated the evidence, reviewed, revised, and voted on recommendations to establish this consensus.
Results: We present a comprehensive document with 20 statements, reviewing the evidence, efficacy, and safety of delivering inhaled agents to adults needing respiratory support, and providing guidance for healthcare workers. Most recommendations were based on in-vitro or experimental studies (low-level evidence), emphasizing the need for randomized clinical trials. The panel reached a consensus after 3 rounds anonymous questionnaires and 2 online meetings.
Conclusions: We offer a multinational expert consensus that provides guidance on the optimal aerosol delivery techniques for patients receiving respiratory support in various real-world clinical scenarios.
© 2023. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
JL discloses research funding from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd, Aerogen Ltd, American Association for Respiratory Care (AARC), and Rice Foundation, and speaker fees from AARC, Aerogen Ltd, Heyer Ltd, and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. HL discloses research funding from Chang Fung Memorial Foundation. AT discloses research funding from Bayer, and Cardeas. AB discloses research funding from Trudell Medical International, participation in clinical advisory board of Hollo Medical Inc, and participation as science advisor to International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium on Regulation and Science. JR discloses grants or consultancies from ESCMID, European Respiratory Society, Bayer, and Genentech, speaker’s bureau for Norma Hellas. CEL discloses consultancies from Aerogen Ltd, AdvanzPharma, Merck and Pfizer. RD reports personal fees from Astra-Zeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Mylan, UptoDate, and Teva. He is the recipient of research grants form Mylan, Viatris and GSK. AT discloses research funding from Bayer, and Cardeas. LV was employed by DTF Medical from 2001 to 2018 and by Nemera from 2018 to 2020. JBF is Chief Science Officer for Aerogen Pharma Corp 2016 to present and previously Chief Clinical Officer at Aerogen Ltd. SE discloses consultancies from Aerogen Ltd, research support, speaker fees, and travel support from Aerogen Ltd and Fisher & Paykel healthcare. Others do not have any conflict of interest to disclose.
Figures



References
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources