4.7 Article

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

期刊

PHARMACEUTICS
卷 13, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13111858

关键词

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

资金

  1. Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据