ArticlePloS one2025
1-4-2: Evaluation of applied mechanical power to individual lungs in a simulator-based setting of one ventilator for two patients.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe concept of ventilating multiple patients concurrently using a single ventilator has been proposed as a solution when the demand for ventilators surpasses the available supply. While the practicality of this approach has been established, a thorough evaluation of the risks involved has yet to be comprehensively addressed.
methodsTwo circuits, a simple one (circuit-1) and another with an adjustable resistance valve (circuit-2), were evaluated within an experimental framework utilizing two computer-controlled lung simulators (TestChest and ASL 5000). These simulators were ventilated by an ICU (intensive care unit) ventilator (Servo-u) employing various ventilation modes (volume- and pressure-controlled ventilation). The study was conducted under differing respiratory conditions, characterized by low compliance (20 ml/cmH2O) as well as normal-high compliance (100 ml/cmH2O), in order to ascertain the applied tidal volume (VT), pressures, and the resultant mechanical power (MP).
resultsCircuit-1: The applied VT, pressures, and MP differed significantly between the two simulators, as well as in relation to ventilation mode, compliance, and respiratory rate (RR) (p < 0.001); the differences were most pronounced in settings with differing compliance levels. Circuit-2: Differences in VT, pressures, and MP were observed between simulators concerning valve settings (p < 0.001). The VT demonstrated a negative correlation, with volumes derived from valve closure spanning from 50 to 100 ml across all settings. In the design of circuit-2, MP exceeded the 12 J/min threshold in both lung simulators at elevated RR and could only be decreased through valve closure followed by a consequential hypoventilation in one simulator.
conclusionThe simultaneous ventilation of two patients using a single ventilator is technically viable, yet it presents considerable risks. Even with the integration of an adjustable resistance valve to accommodate varying lung complexities, the likelihood of unilateral hypoventilation and elevated mechanical stress remains high.
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.