ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Evaluation of the Puritan Bennett™ 980 Ventilator System Safety and Performance in the Real-World Setting.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Mechanical ventilation is a life-supporting intervention but is associated with known risks and complications. To improve the efficacy and safety profile of mechanical ventilation, manufacturers have developed advanced ventilator settings, modes, and alarm strategies to optimize ventilation for patient needs while avoiding complications. However, there is little real-world data published on the deployment of ventilator technology. The main objective of this study was to assess the clinical safety and performance of the Puritan Bennett™ 980 Ventilator System (PB980) using real-world clinical data collected from a diverse, global patient population. Methods: This was a multi-center, post-market registry study that included nine sites: four in the United States of America, one in Europe, and four in China. Patients were enrolled into the registry if they were intended to be treated with a PB980. Data collection began at the start of ventilation and continued until extubation off the ventilator or up to seven days of ventilation, whichever occurred first. Subjects were divided by age into three categories: infants (0-365 days), pediatric (1-17 years), and adult (18 years and older). The primary outcome was device-related complication rate. Results: Two-hundred-and-eleven subjects were enrolled (41 infants, 48 pediatric, and 122 adults). Sixteen deaths, unrelated to device deficiency, occurred during the data collection timeframe (relative frequency: 7.58, 95% CI: 4.40, 12.0). Only one device-related adverse event was reported (relative frequency: 0.47% 95% CI: 0.01%, 2.61%). Conclusion: Ventilation by the PB980 was delivered safely in this multi-center observational study, which included a diverse sample of patients with broad ventilatory needs.
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.