Background
This study compares an endoscopic microcatheter and a nebulizer for delivering Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC).
Conclusions
This investigation has revealed that microcatheter technology generates larger aerosol droplet size, less drug tissue penetration and lower drug tissue concentration than the current nozzle technology. In the absence of clinical studies, use of microcatheters for delivering PIPAC can not be recommended at this stage.
Methods
This is an in vitro and ex vivo study in an established model (inverted bovine urinary bladder). Four parameters were compared to determine the performance of a micro-perforated endoscopic spray catheter vs. state-of-the art, nozzle technology: (1) surface coverage and pattern with methylene blue on blotting paper at three different distances; (2) median aerodynamic diameter (MAD) of aerosol droplets with three different solutions (H2O, Glc 5% and silicon oil); (3) depth of tissue penetration of doxorubicin (DOX) and (4) tissue concentration of cisplatin (CIS) and DOX using standard clinical solutions.
Results
The spray area covered by the microcatheter was larger (p < 0.001) but its pattern was inhomogenous than with the nozzle technology. We found that aerosol droplets were larger in the test group than in the control group for all three solutions tested. Median tissue penetration of DOX was lower (980 µm) with the microcatheter than with the nebulizer (1235 µm) and distribution was more heterogeneous ( = 0.003) with the microcatheter. The median tissue concentration of DOX and CIS was lower and concentration of DOX was more heterogeneous with the microcatheter (p = 0.002). Conclusions: This investigation has revealed that microcatheter technology generates larger aerosol droplet size, less drug tissue penetration and lower drug tissue concentration than the current nozzle technology. In the absence of clinical studies, use of microcatheters for delivering PIPAC can not be recommended at this stage.