ICU机械呼吸机的实际性能:一项多中心质量控制研究。

IF 1.3 Q4 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL Medical Devices-Evidence and Research Pub Date : 2012-01-01 Epub Date: 2012-12-20 DOI:10.2147/MDER.S35864
Leonardo Govoni, Raffaele L Dellaca', Oscar Peñuelas, Giacomo Bellani, Antonio Artigas, Miquel Ferrer, Daniel Navajas, Antonio Pedotti, Ramon Farré
{"title":"ICU机械呼吸机的实际性能:一项多中心质量控制研究。","authors":"Leonardo Govoni,&nbsp;Raffaele L Dellaca',&nbsp;Oscar Peñuelas,&nbsp;Giacomo Bellani,&nbsp;Antonio Artigas,&nbsp;Miquel Ferrer,&nbsp;Daniel Navajas,&nbsp;Antonio Pedotti,&nbsp;Ramon Farré","doi":"10.2147/MDER.S35864","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Even if the performance of a given ventilator has been evaluated in the laboratory under very well controlled conditions, inappropriate maintenance and lack of long-term stability and accuracy of the ventilator sensors may lead to ventilation errors in actual clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the actual performances of ventilators during clinical routines. A resistance (7.69 cmH(2)O/L/s) - elastance (100 mL/cmH(2)O) test lung equipped with pressure, flow, and oxygen concentration sensors was connected to the Y-piece of all the mechanical ventilators available for patients in four intensive care units (ICUs; n = 66). Ventilators were set to volume-controlled ventilation with tidal volume = 600 mL, respiratory rate = 20 breaths/minute, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) = 8 cmH(2)O, and oxygen fraction = 0.5. The signals from the sensors were recorded to compute the ventilation parameters. The average ± standard deviation and range (min-max) of the ventilatory parameters were the following: inspired tidal volume = 607 ± 36 (530-723) mL, expired tidal volume = 608 ± 36 (530-728) mL, peak pressure = 20.8 ± 2.3 (17.2-25.9) cmH(2)O, respiratory rate = 20.09 ± 0.35 (19.5-21.6) breaths/minute, PEEP = 8.43 ± 0.57 (7.26-10.8) cmH(2)O, oxygen fraction = 0.49 ± 0.014 (0.41-0.53). The more error-prone parameters were the ones related to the measure of flow. In several cases, the actual delivered mechanical ventilation was considerably different from the set one, suggesting the need for improving quality control procedures for these machines.</p>","PeriodicalId":47140,"journal":{"name":"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research","volume":" ","pages":"111-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/MDER.S35864","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Actual performance of mechanical ventilators in ICU: a multicentric quality control study.\",\"authors\":\"Leonardo Govoni,&nbsp;Raffaele L Dellaca',&nbsp;Oscar Peñuelas,&nbsp;Giacomo Bellani,&nbsp;Antonio Artigas,&nbsp;Miquel Ferrer,&nbsp;Daniel Navajas,&nbsp;Antonio Pedotti,&nbsp;Ramon Farré\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/MDER.S35864\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Even if the performance of a given ventilator has been evaluated in the laboratory under very well controlled conditions, inappropriate maintenance and lack of long-term stability and accuracy of the ventilator sensors may lead to ventilation errors in actual clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the actual performances of ventilators during clinical routines. A resistance (7.69 cmH(2)O/L/s) - elastance (100 mL/cmH(2)O) test lung equipped with pressure, flow, and oxygen concentration sensors was connected to the Y-piece of all the mechanical ventilators available for patients in four intensive care units (ICUs; n = 66). Ventilators were set to volume-controlled ventilation with tidal volume = 600 mL, respiratory rate = 20 breaths/minute, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) = 8 cmH(2)O, and oxygen fraction = 0.5. The signals from the sensors were recorded to compute the ventilation parameters. The average ± standard deviation and range (min-max) of the ventilatory parameters were the following: inspired tidal volume = 607 ± 36 (530-723) mL, expired tidal volume = 608 ± 36 (530-728) mL, peak pressure = 20.8 ± 2.3 (17.2-25.9) cmH(2)O, respiratory rate = 20.09 ± 0.35 (19.5-21.6) breaths/minute, PEEP = 8.43 ± 0.57 (7.26-10.8) cmH(2)O, oxygen fraction = 0.49 ± 0.014 (0.41-0.53). The more error-prone parameters were the ones related to the measure of flow. In several cases, the actual delivered mechanical ventilation was considerably different from the set one, suggesting the need for improving quality control procedures for these machines.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47140,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"111-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/MDER.S35864\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S35864\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2012/12/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S35864","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/12/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

即使给定呼吸机的性能已经在实验室中在非常良好的控制条件下进行了评估,不适当的维护以及呼吸机传感器缺乏长期稳定性和准确性也可能导致实际临床实践中的通气错误。本研究的目的是评估呼吸机在临床常规中的实际性能。一个阻力(7.69 cmH(2)O/L/s) -弹性(100 mL/cmH(2)O)测试肺,配备压力、流量和氧浓度传感器,连接到四个重症监护病房(icu)患者可用的所有机械呼吸机的y片;N = 66)。设置呼吸机为量控通气,潮气量600 mL,呼吸速率20次/min,呼气末正压(PEEP) 8 cmH(2)O,氧分数0.5。记录来自传感器的信号以计算通风参数。各通气参数的平均±标准差和取值范围(min-max)为:吸气潮气量= 607±36 (530-723)mL,呼气潮气量= 608±36 (530-728)mL,峰值压= 20.8±2.3 (17.2-25.9)cmH(2)O,呼吸速率= 20.09±0.35(19.5-21.6)次/min, PEEP = 8.43±0.57 (7.26-10.8)cmH(2)O,氧分数= 0.49±0.014(0.41-0.53)。更容易出错的参数是与流量测量相关的参数。在一些情况下,实际提供的机械通气与设定的有很大不同,这表明需要改进这些机器的质量控制程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Actual performance of mechanical ventilators in ICU: a multicentric quality control study.

Even if the performance of a given ventilator has been evaluated in the laboratory under very well controlled conditions, inappropriate maintenance and lack of long-term stability and accuracy of the ventilator sensors may lead to ventilation errors in actual clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the actual performances of ventilators during clinical routines. A resistance (7.69 cmH(2)O/L/s) - elastance (100 mL/cmH(2)O) test lung equipped with pressure, flow, and oxygen concentration sensors was connected to the Y-piece of all the mechanical ventilators available for patients in four intensive care units (ICUs; n = 66). Ventilators were set to volume-controlled ventilation with tidal volume = 600 mL, respiratory rate = 20 breaths/minute, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) = 8 cmH(2)O, and oxygen fraction = 0.5. The signals from the sensors were recorded to compute the ventilation parameters. The average ± standard deviation and range (min-max) of the ventilatory parameters were the following: inspired tidal volume = 607 ± 36 (530-723) mL, expired tidal volume = 608 ± 36 (530-728) mL, peak pressure = 20.8 ± 2.3 (17.2-25.9) cmH(2)O, respiratory rate = 20.09 ± 0.35 (19.5-21.6) breaths/minute, PEEP = 8.43 ± 0.57 (7.26-10.8) cmH(2)O, oxygen fraction = 0.49 ± 0.014 (0.41-0.53). The more error-prone parameters were the ones related to the measure of flow. In several cases, the actual delivered mechanical ventilation was considerably different from the set one, suggesting the need for improving quality control procedures for these machines.

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
Medical Devices-Evidence and Research
Medical Devices-Evidence and Research ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Initial Validation of the NOL Nociception Level Index® Monitoring System in Black and Multiracial People. Potential of Aluminum Drug Packages with Press-Through Packaging Considering Usability for a Wide Range of Users. The Application Effect of Fine Management Combined with Man-Machine Fixation Mode in Reducing the Attrition Rate of Laparoscopic Instruments-A Non-Randomized, Concurrent Controlled Study. Patients with Growth-Related Disorders and Caregivers Prefer the Somapacitan Device to the Somatrogon Device: Results from a Randomized Crossover Study Assessing Device Preference and Ease of Use Following Simulated Injections. May Glymphatic Drainage Improve Life Quality in Progressive Multiple Sclerosis Outpatients?
×
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