ArticleCritical care explorations2024
Quantitative Comparison of Ventilation Parameters of Different Approaches to Ventilator Splitting and Multiplexing.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2024. 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.
- Quantitative Comparison of Ventilation Parameters of Different Approaches to Ventilator Splitting and Multiplexing.Critical care explorations · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextAmid the COVID-19 pandemic, this study delves into ventilator shortages, exploring simple split ventilation (SSV), simple differential ventilation (SDV), and differential multiventilation (DMV). The knowledge gap centers on understanding their performance and safety implications. HYPOTHESIS: Our hypothesis posits that SSV, SDV, and DMV offer solutions to the ventilator crisis. Rigorous testing was anticipated to unveil advantages and limitations, aiding the development of effective ventilation approaches. METHODS AND MODELS: Using a specialized test bed, SSV, SDV, and DMV were compared. Simulated lungs in a controlled setting facilitated measurements with sensors. Statistical analysis honed in on parameters like peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) and positive end-expiratory pressure.
resultsSetting target PIP at 15 cm H2O for lung 1 and 12.5 cm H2O for lung 2, SSV revealed a PIP of 15.67 ± 0.2 cm H2O for both lungs, with tidal volume (Vt) at 152.9 ± 9 mL. In SDV, lung 1 had a PIP of 25.69 ± 0.2 cm H2O, lung 2 at 24.73 ± 0.2 cm H2O, and Vts of 464.3 ± 0.9 mL and 453.1 ± 10 mL, respectively. DMV trials showed lung 1's PIP at 13.97 ± 0.06 cm H2O, lung 2 at 12.30 ± 0.04 cm H2O, with Vts of 125.8 ± 0.004 mL and 104.4 ± 0.003 mL, respectively. INTERPRETATION AND
conclusionsThis study enriches understanding of ventilator sharing strategy, emphasizing the need for careful selection. DMV, offering individualization while maintaining circuit continuity, stands out. Findings lay the foundation for robust multiplexing strategies, enhancing ventilator management in crises.
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.