ArticleRevista Brasileira de terapia intensiva2022
Robust, maintainable, emergency invasive mechanical ventilator.
Article in Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a simple, robust, safe and efficient invasive mechanical ventilator that can be used in remote areas of the world or war zones where the practical utility of more sophisticated equipment is limited by considerations of maintainability, availability of parts, transportation and/or cost.
methodsThe device implements the pressure-controlled continuous mandatory ventilation mode, complemented by a simple assist-control mode. Continuous positive airway pressure is also possible. The consumption of compressed gases is minimized by avoiding a continuous flow of oxygen or air. Respiratory rates and inspiration/expiration time ratios are electronically determined, and an apnea/power loss alarm is provided.
resultsThe pressure profiles were measured for a range of conditions and found to be adjustable within a ± 2.5cmH2O error margin and stable well within this range over a 41-hour period. Respiratory cycle timing parameters were precise within a few percentage points over the same period. The device was tested for durability for an equivalent period of four months. Chemical and biological tests failed to identify any contamination of the gas by volatile organic compounds or microorganisms. A ventilation test on a large animal, in comparison with a well established ventilator, showed that the animal could be adequately ventilated over a period of 60 minutes, without any noticeable negative aftereffects during the subsequent 24-hour period.
conclusionThis ventilator design may be viable, after further animal tests and formal approval by the competent authorities, for clinical application in the abovementioned atypical circumstances.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.