Regulating inspiratory pressure to individualise tidal volumes in a simulated two-patient, one-ventilator system

Design of a flow modulation device to facilitate individualized ventilation in a shared ventilator setup

This study aims to resolve the unmet need for ventilator surge capacity by developing a prototype device that can alter patient-specific flow in a shared ventilator setup. The device is designed to deliver a predictable tidal volume (VT), requiring minimal additional monitoring and workload. The prototyped device was tested in an in vitro bench setup for its performance against the intended use and design criteria. The ventilation parameters: VT and airway pressures, and ventilation profiles: pressure, flow and volume were measured for different ventilator and device settings for a healthy and ARDS simulated lung pathology. We obtained VTs with a linear correlation with valve openings from 10 to 100% across set inspiratory pressures (IPs) of 20 to 30 cmH2O. Airway pressure varied with valve opening and lung elastance but did not exceed set IPs. Performance was consistent in both healthy and ARDS-simulated lung conditions. The ventilation profile diverged from traditional pressure-controlled profiles. We present the design a flow modulator to titrate VTs in a shared ventilator setup. Application of the flow modulator resulted in a characteristic flow profile that differs from pressure- or volume controlled ventilation. The development of the flow modulator enables further validation of the Individualized Shared Ventilation (ISV) technology with individualization of delivered VTs and the development of a clinical protocol facilitating its clinical use during a ventilator surge capacity problem.

Translational design for limited resource settings as demonstrated by Vent-Lock, a 3D-printed ventilator multiplexer

BACKGROUND

Mechanical ventilators are essential to patients who become critically ill with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and shortages have been reported due to the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

METHODS

We utilized 3D printing (3DP) technology to rapidly prototype and test critical components for a novel ventilator multiplexer system, Vent-Lock, to split one ventilator or anesthesia gas machine between two patients. FloRest, a novel 3DP flow restrictor, provides clinicians control of tidal volumes and positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP), using the 3DP manometer adaptor to monitor pressures. We tested the ventilator splitter circuit in simulation centers between artificial lungs and used an anesthesia gas machine to successfully ventilate two swine.

RESULTS

As one of the first studies to demonstrate splitting one anesthesia gas machine between two swine, we present proof-of-concept of a de novo, closed, multiplexing system, with flow restriction for potential individualized patient therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

While possible, due to the complexity, need for experienced operators, and associated risks, ventilator multiplexing should only be reserved for urgent situations with no other alternatives. Our report underscores the initial design and engineering considerations required for rapid medical device prototyping via 3D printing in limited resource environments, including considerations for design, material selection, production, and distribution. We note that optimization of engineering may minimize 3D printing production risks but may not address the inherent risks of the device or change its indications. Thus, our case report provides insights to inform future rapid prototyping of medical devices.

Parallels between our response to COVID-19 and patient safety

The response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the approach to patient safety share three important concepts: the challenges of preventing rare events, use of rules, and tolerance for uncertainty. We discuss how each of these ideas can be utilised in perioperative safety to create a high-reliability system.

Pressure-Regulated Ventilator Splitting for Disaster Relief: Design, Testing, and Clinical Experience

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has revealed that even the best-resourced hospitals may lack sufficient ventilators to support patients under surge conditions. During a pandemic or mass trauma, an affordable, low-maintenance, off-the-shelf device that would allow health care teams to rapidly expand their ventilator capacity could prove lifesaving, but only if it can be safely integrated into a complex and rapidly changing clinical environment. Here, we define an approach to safe ventilator sharing that prioritizes predictable and independent care of patients sharing a ventilator. Subsequently, we detail the design and testing of a ventilator-splitting circuit that follows this approach and describe our clinical experience with this circuit during the COVID-19 pandemic. This circuit was able to provide individualized and titratable ventilatory support with individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to 2 critically ill patients at the same time, while insulating each patient from changes in the other's condition. We share insights from our experience using this technology in the intensive care unit and outline recommendations for future clinical applications.

Sharing Mechanical Ventilator: In Vitro Evaluation of Circuit Cross-Flows and Patient Interactions

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a shortage of mechanical ventilators was reported and ventilator sharing between patients was proposed as an ultimate solution. Two lung simulators were ventilated by one anesthesia machine connected through two respiratory circuits and T-pieces. Five different combinations of compliances (30–50 mL × cmH₂O⁻¹) and resistances (5–20 cmH₂O × L⁻¹ × s⁻¹) were tested. The ventilation setting was: pressure-controlled ventilation, positive end-expiratory pressure 15 cmH₂O, inspiratory pressure 10 cmH₂O, respiratory rate 20 bpm. Pressures and flows from all the circuit sections have been recorded and analyzed. Simulated patients with equal compliance and resistance received similar ventilation. Compliance reduction from 50 to 30 mL × cmH₂O⁻¹ decreased the tidal volume (V_T) by 32% (418 ± 49 vs. 285 ± 17 mL). The resistance increase from 5 to 20 cmH₂O × L⁻¹ × s⁻¹ decreased V_T by 22% (425 ± 69 vs. 331 ± 51 mL). The maximal alveolar pressure was lower at higher compliance and resistance values and decreased linearly with the time constant (r² = 0.80, p < 0.001). The minimum alveolar pressure ranged from 15.5 ± 0.04 to 16.57 ± 0.04 cmH₂O. Cross-flows between the simulated patients have been recorded in all the tested combinations, during both the inspiratory and expiratory phases. The simultaneous ventilation of two patients with one ventilator may be unable to match individual patient’s needs and has a high risk of cross-interference.

2020 Year in Review: Shared Ventilation for COVID-19

COVID-19 resulting from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in a pandemic of respiratory failure previously unencountered. Early in the pandemic, concentrated infections in high-density population cities threatened to overwhelm health systems, and ventilator shortages were predicted. An early proposed solution was the use of shared ventilation, or the use of a single ventilator to support ≥ 2 patients. Spurred by ill-conceived social media posts, the idea spread in the lay press. Prior to 2020, there were 7 publications on this topic. A year later, more than 40 publications have addressed the technical details for shared ventilation, clinical experience with shared ventilation, as well as the numerous limitations and ethics of the technique. This is a review of the literature regarding shared ventilation from peer-reviewed articles published in 2020.

Simultaneous ventilation in the Covid-19 pandemic. A bench study

COVID-19 pandemic sets the healthcare system to a shortage of ventilators. We aimed at assessing tidal volume (V_T) delivery and air recirculation during expiration when one ventilator is divided into 2 test-lungs. The study was performed in a research laboratory in a medical ICU of a University hospital. An ICU (V500) and a lower-level ventilator (Elisée 350) were attached to two test-lungs (QuickLung) through a dedicated flow-splitter. A 50 mL/cmH₂O Compliance (C) and 5 cmH₂O/L/s Resistance (R) were set in both A and B test-lungs (A C50R5 / B C50R5, step1), A C50-R20 / B C20-R20 (step 2), A C20-R20 / B C10-R20 (step 3), and A C50-R20 / B C20-R5 (step 4). Each ventilator was set in volume and pressure control mode to deliver 800mL V_T. We assessed V_T from a pneumotachograph placed immediately before each lung, pendelluft air, and expiratory resistance (circuit and valve). Values are median (1^st-3^rd quartiles) and compared between ventilators by non-parametric tests. Between Elisée 350 and V500 in volume control V_T in A/B test- lungs were 381/387 vs. 412/433 mL in step 1, 501/270 vs. 492/370 mL in step 2, 509/237 vs. 496/332 mL in step 3, and 496/281 vs. 480/329 mL in step 4. In pressure control the corresponding values were 373/336 vs. 430/414 mL, 416/185 vs. 322/234 mL, 193/108 vs. 176/ 92 mL and 422/201 vs. 481/329mL, respectively (P<0.001 between ventilators at each step for each volume). Pendelluft air volume ranged between 0.7 to 37.8 ml and negatively correlated with expiratory resistance in steps 2 and 3. The lower-level ventilator performed closely to the ICU ventilator. In the clinical setting, these findings suggest that, due to dependence of V_T to C, pressure control should be preferred to maintain adequate V_T at least in one patient when C and/or R changes abruptly and monitoring of V_T should be done carefully. Increasing expiratory resistance should reduce pendelluft volume.