4.7 Article

Lung Deposition of Surfactant Delivered via a Dedicated Laryngeal Mask Airway in Piglets

Journal

PHARMACEUTICS
Volume 13, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13111858

Keywords

surfactant; lung deposition; laryngeal mask airway; newborn; scintigraphy

Funding

  1. Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study with newborn piglets on CPAP, lung deposition of surfactant via LMA was lower compared to InSurE method. Using an integrated camera to guide catheter placement below the vocal cords improved surfactant delivery by 65%.
It is unknown if the lung deposition of surfactant administered via a catheter placed through a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) is equivalent to that obtained by bolus instillation through an endotracheal tube. We compare the lung deposition of surfactant delivered via two types of LMA with the standard technique of endotracheal instillation. 25 newborn piglets on continuous positive airway pressure support (CPAP) were randomized into three groups: 1-LMA-camera (integrated camera and catheter channel; catheter tip below vocal cords), 2-LMA-standard (no camera, no channel; catheter tip above the glottis), 3-InSurE (Intubation, Surfactant administration, Extubation; catheter tip below end of endotracheal tube). All animals received 100 mg & BULL;kg(-1) of poractant alfa mixed with (99m)Technetium-nanocolloid. Surfactant deposition was measured by gamma scintigraphy as a percentage of the administered dose. The median (range) total lung surfactant deposition was 68% (10-85), 41% (5-88), and 88% (67-92) in LMA-camera, LMA-standard, and InSurE, respectively, which was higher (p < 0.05) in the latter. The deposition in the stomach and nasopharynx was higher with the LMA-standard. The surfactant deposition via an LMA was lower than that obtained with InSurE. Although not statistically significant, introducing the catheter below the vocal cords under visual control with an integrated camera improved surfactant LMA delivery by 65%.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available