News

Monday, 21. June 2010

Comparison of four portable jet nebuliser systems: PARI BOY® mobile S performed best

In vitro tests revealed significant advantages of the lightweight PARI BOY mobile S. Compared to the other systems, PARI BOY mobile S produced more respirable droplets for inhalation into the deep lungs and nebulised the test substance in the shortest time.

047G1000 PARI BOY mobile S

Two US scientists evaluated the performance characteristics of four of the most popular portable nebuliser systems in their lab. First, the aerosol aerosol
An aerosol is a colloid of fine solid particles or liquid droplets, in air or another gas.
droplet size was measured. This is an important measure; to reach the deep lungs small droplets need to have diameters smaller than 5µm (thousandth part of a millimetre). Three of the four devices fulfilled this quality feature.

Further measurements were obtained using breath simulation: The nebulisers were connected to a breathing simulator to represent actual patient breathing conditions to measure the amount of test drug that would reach the lungs.

PARI BOY mobile S significantly outperformed the three other devices. Three times more respirable drug was produced compared to the lowest performing device and  30% more respirable drug dose was delivered to the “lungs” of the simulated patient compared to the second best performing device.

The “S” in PARI BOY mobile S stands for “SPRINT” and it lives up to its reputation, considering the amount of drug that is released per minute at the mouthpiece – i.e. a sort of nebulising velocity – the PARI BOY mobile S was six times faster than than the slowest performing device and had a notably, 50% faster rate than the runner-up.

The scientists presented these results at this year’s Congress of the American Thoracic Society (ATS) in New Orleans. They report that the big differences in performance between the nebuliser systems might be clinically significant. Their conclusion: The decision for or against a specific nebuliser device should be made carefully. Once efficient therapy is established in a patient, system changing is not recommended.

Tiffin & Zeman ATS conference 2010: poster 1494