ArticleOpen respiratory archives
Implementation of a Comprehensive Testing Protocol for a Rapidly Manufactured Mechanical Ventilator.
Article in Open respiratory archives. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of flow-optimized pressure control ventilation-volume guaranteed (PCV-VG) on postoperative pulmonary complications: a consort study.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted that surges in critical care demand can overwhelm existing healthcare infrastructures, most evident in the acute shortage of mechanical ventilators across the globe. Despite efforts to encourage urgent authorization of newly developed emergency ventilators, the currently available testing protocols are not internationally accepted, standardized and none address testing in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to compile and perform a comprehensive clinical testing protocol for a newly developed emergency ventilator. Methods: Using previously available guidance, we compiled a sequential testing protocol with a: 1. preclinical, 2. safety testing, 3. clinician usability test and 4. clinical stage involving respiratory failure patients. The protocol was then tested on the Luca ventilator, a mechanical ventilator capable of sophisticated ventilator settings rapidly developed specifically in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: During the pre-clinical/safety stages, the ventilator produced pressure and volume changes deemed acceptable by the Rapidly Manufactured Ventilator System guideline. Furthermore, our protocol allowed the identification of a number of issues that were easily resolved with minor software adjustments. Usability was excellent (overall System Usability Scale score = 90.5). Clinical testing revealed that a sampling frame of 15 critically ill patients was sufficiently powered to detect any significant, clinically relevant differences between the Luca ventilator and a standard ICU ventilator. Conclusions: The ventilator was accurate, reliable, safe, and user-friendly. The implementation of a comprehensive, standardized pre-clinical/clinical testing protocol is feasible, potentially enabling the safe and timely emergency authorization of rapidly developed mechanical ventilators crucial in pandemic situations.
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.