Patients can self-administer the MDI medication using the boot alone but the majority of patients have difficulty in synchronizing the actuation of the MDI canister and inhalation of the medication.
These devices are expensive and may be alright for chronic conditions that require frequent use of MDI inhalers provided the cost and labor involved in frequent delivery of medication is acceptable to the patient.
However, under acute symptoms, such devices may fail to serve the purpose and lead to an inadequate delivery of medication.
Nebulizers are fraught with numerous problems as well.
The medication dose used is about 10 times of that used with an MDI and hence the increased cost without any added proven clinical benefit.
Secondly, the majority of the nebulized medication is wasted during exhalation.
Thirdly, the time taken to deliver the medication is several times that of an MDI and the labor cost of respiratory therapist may outweigh the benefits of nebulizers compared with MDIs.
However, these devices are expensive and still have all the other problems associated with nebulizer use alone.
Problems with prior art devices such as described are a significant waste of medication, a non-uniform concentration of delivered medication, expensive, and difficult to use.
All the afore mentioned devices can be used with either an MDI or a nebulizer but not both, and hence, face the difficultly associated with either system alone.
However, the device is plagued with problems typical of such devices.
Just like other prior art devices, this device as well fails to incorporate some of the key the features necessary for enhanced aerosol delivery.
A list of problems associated with this device and other similar devices are outlined below: (1) The entrained airflow in this device interferes with the MDI plume as well as the plume generated by a nebulizer resulting in increased impaction losses of aerosol generated by either an MDI or nebulizer.
(2) The device does not have the ability to deliver a desired precise fraction of inspired oxygen to a hypoxic patient and simultaneously deliver aerosol medication with either a metered dose inhaler or a nebulizer.
(3) The device cannot deliver a gas with a desired density to improve aerosol delivery and a desired fraction of inspired oxygen to a hypoxemic patient (4) The device does not have the ability to deliver different density gases with a desired fraction of inspired oxygen simultaneously while retaining the ability to deliver aerosol medication at the same time with either an MDI or a nebulizer (5) the device does not have the ability to deliver a mixture of multiple gases to a patient and simultaneously maintain a desired fraction of inspired oxygen (6) the device does not serve as a facemask for delivering varying concentrations of inspired oxygen from room air to 100% but serves solely as an aerosol delivery device (7) the device does not have a reservoir chamber-either as a bag or as a large volume tubing t store nebulized medication that is otherwise wasted during exhalation.
The holding chamber of this device varies from 90 cc to 140 cc and is not enough to serve as a reservoir for the volume of nebulized medication generated during exhalation and hence in a normal sized adult most of the medication generated during exhalation is wasted (8) there is no mechanism in the device to prevent entrainment of room air which forms the bulk of volume during inhalation.
Rebreathing of carbon dioxide from the holding chamber on subsequent inhalation can be extremely detrimental to a patient and extremely dangerous under certain clinical conditions (10) the device does not have the capability of delivering medication with an MDI and a nebulizer simultaneously (11) the device has a fixed volume-holding chamber, which makes the device extremely large and cumbersome to deliver medication.