. 2020 Aug 17;24:506. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03206-9

Table 4.

In vitro studies compared aerosol delivery via HFNC vs conventional aerosol device (JN or VMN with mask)

Author, year	Patient	HFNC gas flow setting (L/min)	Flow setting for conventional nebulizer (L/min)	Inhaled dose (%)
Author, year	Patient	HFNC gas flow setting (L/min)	Flow setting for conventional nebulizer (L/min)	Aerosol delivery via HFNC	JN with mask	VMN with mask
Ari, 2019 [33]	Child	6	6	5.37 ± 0.7	5.76 ± 0.10	11.26 ± 1.90
	Child	4	6	8.64 ± 1.2	5.76 ± 0.10	11.26 ± 1.90
	Infant	6	6	2.35 ± 0.3	3.83 ± 0.50	7.20 ± 0.60
	Infant	4	6	3.27 ± 0.4	3.83 ± 0.50	7.20 ± 0.60
Li et al., 2019 [37]	Child	25	8	2.84 ± 0.20	2.99 ± 0.41	3.65 ± 0.16
Li et al., 2019 [37]	Child	3.75	2	11.57 ± 0.43	NA	3.82 ± 0.07
Réminiac et al., 2017 [38]	Infant	8	6	0.09 ± 0.04	0.71 ± 0.23	NA
		4		0.49 ± 0.44
		2		0.85 ± 0.57
	Toddler	8	6	0.52 ± 0.33	1.66 ± 0.06	NA
		4		3.29 ± 1.70
		2		4.15 ± 1.75
Bennett et al., 2019 [32]	Adult	50	8	6.81 ± 0.45	9.07 ± 0.26	NA
Bennett et al., 2019 [32]	Adult	50	6	NA	NA	36.21 ± 0.78

HFNC high-flow nasal cannula, JN jet nebulizer, VMN vibrating mesh nebulizer; NA, not available