ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2024
Ventilator performances for non-invasive ventilation: a bench study.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bench evaluation of six non-invasive ventilation home ventilators: comparison with an ICU ventilator and unsupervised clustering.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA wide range of recent ventilators, dedicated or not, is available for non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in respiratory or intensive care units (ICU). We conducted a bench study to compare their technical performances.
methodsVentilators, including five ICU ventilators with NIV mode on, two dedicated NIV ventilators and one transport ventilator, were evaluated on a test bench for NIV, consisting of a 3D manikin head connected to an ASL 5000 lung model via a non-vented mask. Ventilators were tested according to three simulated lung profiles (normal, obstructive, restrictive), three levels of simulated air leakage (0, 15, 30 L/min), two levels of pressure support (8, 14 cmH
resultsThe global median Asynchrony Index (AI) was higher with ICU ventilators than with dedicated NIV ventilators (4% (0; 76) vs 0% (0; 15), respectively; p<0.05) and different between all ventilators (p<0.001). The AI was higher with ICU ventilators for the normal and restrictive profiles (p<0.01) and not different between ventilators for the obstructive profile. Auto-triggering represented 43% of all patient-ventilator asynchrony. Triggering delay, cycling delay, inspiratory pressure-time product, pressure rise time and pressure at mask were different between all ventilators (p<0.01). Dedicated NIV ventilators induced a lower pressure-time product than ICU and transport ventilators (p<0.01). There was no difference between ventilators for minute ventilation and peak flow.
conclusionDespite the integration of NIV algorithms, most recent ICU ventilators appear to be less efficient than dedicated NIV ventilators. Technical performances could change, however, according to the underlying respiratory disease and the level of air leakage.
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.