Paper detail

Splitting one ventilator for multiple patients -- a technical assessment

Due to the recent coronavirus outbreak, many efforts and innovative solutions have surfaced to deal with the possible shortage of ventilators upon catastrophic surges of patients. One solution involves splitting one ventilator to treat multiple patients and is in principle easy to implement, but there are obvious risks, and little is known on how the technique would work on patients with ARDS from Covid-19. Previous studies have shown that multiple test lungs of equal characteristics can be successfully ventilated from one machine, but that large variations in tidal volume delivery occurs when lungs with different compliance are connected. In contribution to the discussion of the feasibility of the technique, a technical assessment was done including experiments expanding on the previous studies using two types of test lungs, different ventilator settings and test lung characteristics. Using two test lungs connected to a ventilator, the tidal volumes and pressures into both lungs were measured for different combinations of lung compliance, airway resistances, modes of ventilation, inspiratory and end-expiratory pressure levels. We found discrepancies in delivered tidal volumes for paired test lungs proportional with compliance differences, little influence from differences in airway resistances, and that changes in compliance of only one test lung would also change the tidal volume delivered to the other test lung when in volume controlled mode. For one of the test lung types, we also found that higher PEEP settings could strongly influence the tidal volume balance between the test lungs. From this study and from a technical point of view, we were not able to identify reliable settings, adjustments or any simple measures to overcome the hazards of this simple technique, and a more advanced solution is indicated for mitigating risks.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.