新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)时代紧急呼吸机在健康家兔肺模型上的有效性和安全性测试

White, Luke A., Maxey, Benjamin S., Solitro, Giovanni F., Takei, Hidehiro, Conrad, Steven A., Alexander, J. Steven
{"title":"新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)时代紧急呼吸机在健康家兔肺模型上的有效性和安全性测试","authors":"White, Luke A., Maxey, Benjamin S., Solitro, Giovanni F., Takei, Hidehiro, Conrad, Steven A., Alexander, J. Steven","doi":"10.1186/s42490-022-00059-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic revealed a substantial and unmet need for low-cost, easily accessible mechanical ventilation strategies for use in medical resource-challenged areas. Internationally, several groups developed non-conventional COVID-19 era emergency ventilator strategies as a stopgap measure when conventional ventilators were unavailable. Here, we compared our FALCON emergency ventilator in a rabbit model and compared its safety and functionality to conventional mechanical ventilation. New Zealand white rabbits (n = 5) received mechanical ventilation from both the FALCON and a conventional mechanical ventilator (Engström Carestation™) for 1 h each. Airflow and pressure, blood O2 saturation, end tidal CO2, and arterial blood gas measurements were measured. Additionally, gross and histological lung samples were compared to spontaneously breathing rabbits (n = 3) to assess signs of ventilator induced lung injury. All rabbits were successfully ventilated with the FALCON. At identical ventilator settings, tidal volumes, pressures, and respiratory rates were similar between both ventilators, but the inspiratory to expiratory ratio was lower using the FALCON. End tidal CO2 was significantly higher on the FALCON, and arterial blood gas measurements demonstrated lower arterial partial pressure of O2 at 30 min and higher arterial partial pressure of CO2 at 30 and 60 min using the FALCON. However, when ventilated at higher respiratory rates, we observed a stepwise decrease in end tidal CO2. Poincaré plot analysis demonstrated small but significant increases in short-term and long-term variation of peak inspiratory pressure generation from the FALCON. Wet to dry lung weight and lung injury scoring between the mechanically ventilated and spontaneously breathing rabbits were similar. Although conventional ventilators are always preferable outside of emergency use, the FALCON ventilator safely and effectively ventilated healthy rabbits without lung injury. Emergency ventilation using accessible and inexpensive strategies like the FALCON may be useful for communities with low access to medical resources and as a backup form of emergency ventilation.","PeriodicalId":72425,"journal":{"name":"BMC biomedical engineering","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety testing of a COVID-19 era emergency ventilator in a healthy rabbit lung model\",\"authors\":\"White, Luke A., Maxey, Benjamin S., Solitro, Giovanni F., Takei, Hidehiro, Conrad, Steven A., Alexander, J. Steven\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s42490-022-00059-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The COVID-19 pandemic revealed a substantial and unmet need for low-cost, easily accessible mechanical ventilation strategies for use in medical resource-challenged areas. Internationally, several groups developed non-conventional COVID-19 era emergency ventilator strategies as a stopgap measure when conventional ventilators were unavailable. Here, we compared our FALCON emergency ventilator in a rabbit model and compared its safety and functionality to conventional mechanical ventilation. New Zealand white rabbits (n = 5) received mechanical ventilation from both the FALCON and a conventional mechanical ventilator (Engström Carestation™) for 1 h each. Airflow and pressure, blood O2 saturation, end tidal CO2, and arterial blood gas measurements were measured. Additionally, gross and histological lung samples were compared to spontaneously breathing rabbits (n = 3) to assess signs of ventilator induced lung injury. All rabbits were successfully ventilated with the FALCON. At identical ventilator settings, tidal volumes, pressures, and respiratory rates were similar between both ventilators, but the inspiratory to expiratory ratio was lower using the FALCON. End tidal CO2 was significantly higher on the FALCON, and arterial blood gas measurements demonstrated lower arterial partial pressure of O2 at 30 min and higher arterial partial pressure of CO2 at 30 and 60 min using the FALCON. However, when ventilated at higher respiratory rates, we observed a stepwise decrease in end tidal CO2. Poincaré plot analysis demonstrated small but significant increases in short-term and long-term variation of peak inspiratory pressure generation from the FALCON. Wet to dry lung weight and lung injury scoring between the mechanically ventilated and spontaneously breathing rabbits were similar. Although conventional ventilators are always preferable outside of emergency use, the FALCON ventilator safely and effectively ventilated healthy rabbits without lung injury. Emergency ventilation using accessible and inexpensive strategies like the FALCON may be useful for communities with low access to medical resources and as a backup form of emergency ventilation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72425,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC biomedical engineering\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC biomedical engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42490-022-00059-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC biomedical engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42490-022-00059-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

2019冠状病毒病大流行表明,在医疗资源匮乏的地区,对低成本、易于获取的机械通气策略存在大量未满足的需求。在国际上,几个小组制定了非常规的COVID-19时代紧急呼吸机策略,作为在常规呼吸机不可用时的权宜之计。在这里,我们在兔子模型中比较了我们的FALCON紧急呼吸机,并将其与传统机械通气的安全性和功能进行了比较。新西兰大白兔(n = 5)分别接受FALCON和传统机械呼吸机(Engström Carestation™)1小时的机械通气。测量气流、血压、血氧饱和度、尾潮CO2和动脉血气。此外,将肉眼和组织学肺样本与自发呼吸的兔子(n = 3)进行比较,以评估呼吸机引起的肺损伤的迹象。所有的兔子都成功地用猎鹰通风了。在相同的呼吸机设置下,两种呼吸机的潮气量、压力和呼吸频率相似,但使用FALCON时吸气呼气比较低。在猎鹰上,尾潮CO2明显更高,动脉血气测量显示,使用猎鹰30分钟时动脉O2分压较低,30和60分钟时动脉CO2分压较高。然而,当以较高的呼吸速率通风时,我们观察到末潮CO2逐渐减少。poincar图分析显示,猎鹰产生的峰值吸气压力的短期和长期变化虽小但显著增加。机械通气和自主呼吸兔的干肺重和肺损伤评分相似。尽管常规呼吸机在非紧急情况下更可取,但FALCON呼吸机安全有效地为健康家兔通气,不会造成肺损伤。使用FALCON等可获得和廉价的策略进行紧急通气,可能对医疗资源较少的社区有用,并可作为紧急通气的备用形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Efficacy and safety testing of a COVID-19 era emergency ventilator in a healthy rabbit lung model
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed a substantial and unmet need for low-cost, easily accessible mechanical ventilation strategies for use in medical resource-challenged areas. Internationally, several groups developed non-conventional COVID-19 era emergency ventilator strategies as a stopgap measure when conventional ventilators were unavailable. Here, we compared our FALCON emergency ventilator in a rabbit model and compared its safety and functionality to conventional mechanical ventilation. New Zealand white rabbits (n = 5) received mechanical ventilation from both the FALCON and a conventional mechanical ventilator (Engström Carestation™) for 1 h each. Airflow and pressure, blood O2 saturation, end tidal CO2, and arterial blood gas measurements were measured. Additionally, gross and histological lung samples were compared to spontaneously breathing rabbits (n = 3) to assess signs of ventilator induced lung injury. All rabbits were successfully ventilated with the FALCON. At identical ventilator settings, tidal volumes, pressures, and respiratory rates were similar between both ventilators, but the inspiratory to expiratory ratio was lower using the FALCON. End tidal CO2 was significantly higher on the FALCON, and arterial blood gas measurements demonstrated lower arterial partial pressure of O2 at 30 min and higher arterial partial pressure of CO2 at 30 and 60 min using the FALCON. However, when ventilated at higher respiratory rates, we observed a stepwise decrease in end tidal CO2. Poincaré plot analysis demonstrated small but significant increases in short-term and long-term variation of peak inspiratory pressure generation from the FALCON. Wet to dry lung weight and lung injury scoring between the mechanically ventilated and spontaneously breathing rabbits were similar. Although conventional ventilators are always preferable outside of emergency use, the FALCON ventilator safely and effectively ventilated healthy rabbits without lung injury. Emergency ventilation using accessible and inexpensive strategies like the FALCON may be useful for communities with low access to medical resources and as a backup form of emergency ventilation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊最新文献
A performance evaluation of commercially available and 3D-printable prosthetic hands: a comparison using the anthropomorphic hand assessment protocol. Comparing scissors and scalpels to a novel surgical instrument: a biomechanical sectioning study. The neurophysiology of sensorimotor prosthetic control. Multi-parameter viscoelastic material model for denture adhesives based on time-temperature superposition and multiple linear regression analysis. The effect of using the hip exoskeleton assistive (HEXA) robot compared to conventional physiotherapy on clinical functional outcomes in stroke patients with hemiplegia: a pilot randomized controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1