Performance of the New Turbine Mid-Level Critical Care Ventilators

Delgado, Carlos; Romero, José Enrique Gutiérrez; Puig, Jaume; Izquierdo, Ana Córdoba; Ferrando, Carlos; Belda, F. Javier; Soro, Marina

doi:10.4187/respcare.04938

Cited by 11 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To qualify the performance of the inhale trigger, the variables defined in [ 31 ], which are based on the parameters originally defined in [ 32 ] are used. Figure 13 illustrates schematically the typical behaviour.…”

Section: Prototype Test Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The following variables are defined: the time to minimum pressure (TPM) is defined as the time between the beginning of the inhalation effort and the minimum value measured by the proximal flow sensor, and the trigger delay time (TDT) is defined as the time between the beginning of the inhalation effort and the moment the pressure returns to zero. Values of TPM in commercial ventilators typically vary between 50 and 150 ms depending on the inhalation effort (see for example [ 31 ]), while TDT, which should ideally be below 150 ms so as not to be felt by the patient, varies for commercial ventilators in practice between 90 and 250 ms [ 31 ]. The pressure-time product during trigger (PTP) is represented in figure 13 by the yellow/brown areas and represents the effort until the pressure is effective.…”

Section: Prototype Test Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The pressure-time product during trigger (PTP) is represented in figure 13 by the yellow/brown areas and represents the effort until the pressure is effective. It ranges from 0.02 to 0.3 cm H 2 O s in commercial ventilators [ 31 ]. The ideal iPTP300% (iPTP500%) percentage is the ratio of the pressure integral over the 300 (500) ms following the trigger delay (the area of the yellow/brown regions in figure 13 ) and the ideal PTP at 300 (500) ms.…”

Section: Prototype Test Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ideal iPTP300% (iPTP500%) percentage is the ratio of the pressure integral over the 300 (500) ms following the trigger delay (the area of the yellow/brown regions in figure 13 ) and the ideal PTP at 300 (500) ms. It should be as large as possible, with typical commercial ventilators exhibiting values between 10 and 50% (20 and 75%) for PTP300 (PTP500) depending on the inhalation effort [ 31 ].

Figure 13 Measured parameters to qualify the inhalation trigger.…”

Section: Prototype Test Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

Figure 13 Measured parameters to qualify the inhalation trigger. The variables used in this work are based on the work presented in [ 31 , 33 , 37 ]. …”

Section: Prototype Test Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The HEV Ventilator: at the interface between particle physics and biomedical engineering

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A high-quality, low-cost ventilator, dubbed HEV, has been developed by the particle physics community working together with biomedical engineers and physicians around the world. The HEV design is suitable for use both in and out of hospital intensive care units, provides a variety of modes and is capable of supporting spontaneous breathing and supplying oxygen-enriched air. An external air supply can be combined with the unit for use in situations where compressed air is not readily available. HEV supports remote training and post market surveillance via a Web interface and data logging to complement standard touch screen operation, making it suitable for a wide range of geographical deployment. The HEV design places emphasis on the ventilation performance, especially the quality and accuracy of the pressure curves, reactivity of the trigger, measurement of delivered volume and control of oxygen mixing, delivering a global performance which will be applicable to ventilator needs beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. This article describes the conceptual design and presents the prototype units together with a performance evaluation.

show abstract

Section: Prototype Test Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Prototype Test Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Prototype Test Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Figure 13 Measured parameters to qualify the inhalation trigger.…”

Section: Prototype Test Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

Figure 13 Measured parameters to qualify the inhalation trigger. The variables used in this work are based on the work presented in [ 31 , 33 , 37 ]. …”

Section: Prototype Test Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The HEV Ventilator: at the interface between particle physics and biomedical engineering

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Are all ventilators for NIV performing the same? A bench analysis

Martínez‐Castro

Nacher

Bernabeu

et al. 2023

J Clin Monit Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global pandemic due to COVID-19 has increased the interest for ventilators´ use worldwide. New devices have been developed and older ones have undergone a renewed interest, but we lack robust evidence about performance of each ventilator to match appropriate device to a given patient and care environment. The aim of this bench study was to investigate the performance of six devices for noninvasive ventilation, and to compare them in terms of volume delivered, trigger response, pressurization capacity and synchronization in volume assisted controlled and pressure support ventilation. All ventilators were tested under thirty-six experimental conditions by using the lung model ASL5000® (IngMar Medical, Pittsburgh, PA). Two leak levels, two muscle inspiratory efforts and three mechanical patterns were combined for simulation. Trigger function was assessed by measurement of trigger-delay time. Pressurization capacity was evaluated as area under the pressure–time curve over the first 500 ms after inspiratory effort onset. Synchronization was evaluated by the asynchrony index and by incidence and type of asynchronies in each condition. All ventilators showed a good performance, even if pressurization capacity was worse than expected. Leak level did not affect their function. Differences were found during low muscle effort and obstructive pattern. In general, Philips Trilogy Evo/EV300 and Hamilton C3 showed the best results. NIV devices successfully compensate air leaks but still underperform with low muscle effort and obstructive lungs. Clinicians´ must have a clear understanding of the goals of NIV both for devices´ choice and set main parameters to achieve therapy success.

show abstract