Jacob Herrmann1,2, Andrea Fonseca da Cruz3, Monica L Hawley2, Richard D Branson4, David W Kaczka5,6. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. OscillaVent, Iowa City, Iowa. 3. Department of Anesthesia, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 4. Division of Trauma and Critical Care, Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. 5. OscillaVent, Iowa City, Iowa. david-kaczka@uiowa.edu. 6. Departments of Anesthesia, Biomedical Engineering, and Radiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of shared ventilation, or the simultaneous support of multiple patients connected in parallel to a single mechanical ventilator, is receiving considerable interest for addressing the severe shortage of mechanical ventilators available during the novel coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). In this paper we highlight the potentially disastrous consequences of naïve shared ventilation, in which patients are simply connected in parallel to a ventilator without any regard to their individual ventilatory requirements. We then examine possible approaches for individualization of mechanical ventilation, using modifications to the breathing circuit that may enable tuning of individual tidal volumes and driving pressures during either volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) or pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). METHODS: Breathing circuit modifications included a PEEP valve on each expiratory limb for both VCV and PCV, an adjustable constriction and one-way valve on the inspiratory limb for VCV, and a pressure-relief valve for peak inspiratory pressure reduction on the inspiratory limb for PCV. The ability to regulate individual tidal volumes using these breathing circuit modifications was tested both theoretically in computer simulations as well as experimentally in mechanical test lungs. RESULTS: In both the simulations and experimental measurements, naïve shared ventilation resulted in large imbalances across individual tidal volume delivery, dependent on imbalances across patient mechanical properties. The proposed breathing circuit modifications for shared VCV and shared PCV enabled optimization of tidal volume distributions. Individual tidal volume for one patient during shared VCV was sensitive to changes in the mechanical properties of other patients. By contrast, shared PCV enabled independent control of individual patient-received ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Of the shared ventilation strategies considered, shared PCV, with the inclusion of in-line pressure-relief valves in the individual inspiratory and expiratory limbs, offers the greatest degree of safety and lowest risk of catastrophic mechanical interactions between multiple patients connected to a single ventilator.
BACKGROUND: The use of shared ventilation, or the simultaneous support of multiple patients connected in parallel to a single mechanical ventilator, is receiving considerable interest for addressing the severe shortage of mechanical ventilators available during the novel coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). In this paper we highlight the potentially disastrous consequences of naïve shared ventilation, in which patients are simply connected in parallel to a ventilator without any regard to their individual ventilatory requirements. We then examine possible approaches for individualization of mechanical ventilation, using modifications to the breathing circuit that may enable tuning of individual tidal volumes and driving pressures during either volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) or pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). METHODS: Breathing circuit modifications included a PEEP valve on each expiratory limb for both VCV and PCV, an adjustable constriction and one-way valve on the inspiratory limb for VCV, and a pressure-relief valve for peak inspiratory pressure reduction on the inspiratory limb for PCV. The ability to regulate individual tidal volumes using these breathing circuit modifications was tested both theoretically in computer simulations as well as experimentally in mechanical test lungs. RESULTS: In both the simulations and experimental measurements, naïve shared ventilation resulted in large imbalances across individual tidal volume delivery, dependent on imbalances across patient mechanical properties. The proposed breathing circuit modifications for shared VCV and shared PCV enabled optimization of tidal volume distributions. Individual tidal volume for one patient during shared VCV was sensitive to changes in the mechanical properties of other patients. By contrast, shared PCV enabled independent control of individual patient-received ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Of the shared ventilation strategies considered, shared PCV, with the inclusion of in-line pressure-relief valves in the individual inspiratory and expiratory limbs, offers the greatest degree of safety and lowest risk of catastrophic mechanical interactions between multiple patients connected to a single ventilator.
Authors: Vitaly O Kheyfets; Steven R Lammers; Jennifer Wagner; Karsten Bartels; Jerome Piccoli; Bradford J Smith Journal: Respir Care Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 2.258
Authors: Alberto Palazzuoli; Franco Ruberto; Gaetano M De Ferrari; Giovanni Forleo; Gioel G Secco; Gaetano M Ruocco; Fabrizio D'Ascenzo; Francesco Mojoli; Silvia Monticone; Anita Paggi; Marco Vicenzi; Silvia Corcione; Anna G Palazzo; Maurizio Landolina; Erika Taravelli; Guido Tavazzi; Francesco Blasi; Massimo Mancone; Lucia I Birtolo; Francesco Alessandri; Fabio Infusino; Francesco Pugliese; Francesco Fedele; Francesco Giuseppe De Rosa; Michael Emmett; Jeffrey M Schussler; Peter A McCullough; Kristen M Tecson Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2020-09-18
Authors: Jeffrey B Webb; Aaron Bray; Philip K Asare; Rachel B Clipp; Yatin B Mehta; Sudheer Penupolu; Aalpen A Patel; S Mark Poler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Pedro M Garcia Eijo; Juan D'Adamo; Arturo Bianchetti; Thomas Duriez; Juan M Cabaleiro; Célica Irrazabal; Pablo Otero; Guillermo Artana Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Pierce Geoghegan; Jennifer Clarke; Grace Hogan; Aoife Keogh; Hannah Marsh; Karen Donnelly; Natalie McEvoy; Aoife Doolan; Stephen F Madden; Ignacio Martin-Loeches; Michael Power; John G Laffey; Gerard F Curley Journal: Physiol Rep Date: 2022-09