4.3 Article

Modeling and optimization of nebulizers' performance in non-invasive ventilation using different fill volumes: Comparative study between vibrating mesh and jet nebulizers

期刊

PULMONARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 50, 期 -, 页码 62-71

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pupt.2018.04.005

关键词

Non-invasive ventilation; Modeling; Nebulizer; Neural networks; Fill volume

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Backgrounds: Substituting nebulisers by another, especially in non-invasive ventilation (NIV), involves many process-variables, e.g. nebulizer-type and fill-volume of respirable-dose, which might affect patient optimum therapy. The aim of the present work was to use neural-networks and genetic-algorithms to develop performance-models for two different nebulizers. Methods: In-vitro, ex-vivo and in-vivo models were developed using input-variables including nebulizer-type [jet nebulizer (JN) and vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN)] fill-volumes of respirable dose placed in the nebulization chamber with an output-variable e.g. average amount reaching NIV patient. Produced models were tested and validated to ensure effective predictivity and validity in further optimization of nebulization process. Results: Data-mining produced models showed excellent training, testing and validation correlation-coefficients. VMN showed high nebulization efficacy than JN. JN was affected more by increasing the fill-volume. The optimization process and contour-lines obtained for in-vivo model showed increase in pulmonary-bioavailability and systemic-absorption with VMN and 2 mL fill-volumes. Conclusions: Modeling of aerosol-delivery by JN and VMN using different fill-volumes in NIV circuit was successful in demonstrating the effect of different variable on dose-delivery to NIV patient. Artificial neural networks model showed that VMN increased pulmonary-bioavailability and systemic-absorption compared to JN. VMN was less affected by fill-volume change compared to JN which should be diluted to increase delivery.

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

4.3
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