Cargando…
Efficacy and safety testing of a COVID-19 era emergency ventilator in a healthy rabbit lung model
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic revealed a substantial and unmet need for low-cost, easily accessible mechanical ventilation strategies for use in medical resource-challenged areas. Internationally, several groups developed non-conventional COVID-19 era emergency ventilator strategies as a stopgap...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8919917/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35287761 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42490-022-00059-x |
_version_ | 1784669022622580736 |
---|---|
author | White, Luke A. Maxey, Benjamin S. Solitro, Giovanni F. Takei, Hidehiro Conrad, Steven A. Alexander, J. Steven |
author_facet | White, Luke A. Maxey, Benjamin S. Solitro, Giovanni F. Takei, Hidehiro Conrad, Steven A. Alexander, J. Steven |
author_sort | White, Luke A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic revealed a substantial and unmet need for low-cost, easily accessible mechanical ventilation strategies for use in medical resource-challenged areas. Internationally, several groups developed non-conventional COVID-19 era emergency ventilator strategies as a stopgap measure when conventional ventilators were unavailable. Here, we compared our FALCON emergency ventilator in a rabbit model and compared its safety and functionality to conventional mechanical ventilation. METHODS: New Zealand white rabbits (n = 5) received mechanical ventilation from both the FALCON and a conventional mechanical ventilator (Engström Carestation™) for 1 h each. Airflow and pressure, blood O(2) saturation, end tidal CO(2), and arterial blood gas measurements were measured. Additionally, gross and histological lung samples were compared to spontaneously breathing rabbits (n = 3) to assess signs of ventilator induced lung injury. RESULTS: All rabbits were successfully ventilated with the FALCON. At identical ventilator settings, tidal volumes, pressures, and respiratory rates were similar between both ventilators, but the inspiratory to expiratory ratio was lower using the FALCON. End tidal CO(2) was significantly higher on the FALCON, and arterial blood gas measurements demonstrated lower arterial partial pressure of O(2) at 30 min and higher arterial partial pressure of CO(2) at 30 and 60 min using the FALCON. However, when ventilated at higher respiratory rates, we observed a stepwise decrease in end tidal CO(2). Poincaré plot analysis demonstrated small but significant increases in short-term and long-term variation of peak inspiratory pressure generation from the FALCON. Wet to dry lung weight and lung injury scoring between the mechanically ventilated and spontaneously breathing rabbits were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Although conventional ventilators are always preferable outside of emergency use, the FALCON ventilator safely and effectively ventilated healthy rabbits without lung injury. Emergency ventilation using accessible and inexpensive strategies like the FALCON may be useful for communities with low access to medical resources and as a backup form of emergency ventilation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42490-022-00059-x. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8919917 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89199172022-03-15 Efficacy and safety testing of a COVID-19 era emergency ventilator in a healthy rabbit lung model White, Luke A. Maxey, Benjamin S. Solitro, Giovanni F. Takei, Hidehiro Conrad, Steven A. Alexander, J. Steven BMC Biomed Eng Research BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic revealed a substantial and unmet need for low-cost, easily accessible mechanical ventilation strategies for use in medical resource-challenged areas. Internationally, several groups developed non-conventional COVID-19 era emergency ventilator strategies as a stopgap measure when conventional ventilators were unavailable. Here, we compared our FALCON emergency ventilator in a rabbit model and compared its safety and functionality to conventional mechanical ventilation. METHODS: New Zealand white rabbits (n = 5) received mechanical ventilation from both the FALCON and a conventional mechanical ventilator (Engström Carestation™) for 1 h each. Airflow and pressure, blood O(2) saturation, end tidal CO(2), and arterial blood gas measurements were measured. Additionally, gross and histological lung samples were compared to spontaneously breathing rabbits (n = 3) to assess signs of ventilator induced lung injury. RESULTS: All rabbits were successfully ventilated with the FALCON. At identical ventilator settings, tidal volumes, pressures, and respiratory rates were similar between both ventilators, but the inspiratory to expiratory ratio was lower using the FALCON. End tidal CO(2) was significantly higher on the FALCON, and arterial blood gas measurements demonstrated lower arterial partial pressure of O(2) at 30 min and higher arterial partial pressure of CO(2) at 30 and 60 min using the FALCON. However, when ventilated at higher respiratory rates, we observed a stepwise decrease in end tidal CO(2). Poincaré plot analysis demonstrated small but significant increases in short-term and long-term variation of peak inspiratory pressure generation from the FALCON. Wet to dry lung weight and lung injury scoring between the mechanically ventilated and spontaneously breathing rabbits were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Although conventional ventilators are always preferable outside of emergency use, the FALCON ventilator safely and effectively ventilated healthy rabbits without lung injury. Emergency ventilation using accessible and inexpensive strategies like the FALCON may be useful for communities with low access to medical resources and as a backup form of emergency ventilation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42490-022-00059-x. BioMed Central 2022-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8919917/ /pubmed/35287761 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42490-022-00059-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research White, Luke A. Maxey, Benjamin S. Solitro, Giovanni F. Takei, Hidehiro Conrad, Steven A. Alexander, J. Steven Efficacy and safety testing of a COVID-19 era emergency ventilator in a healthy rabbit lung model |
title | Efficacy and safety testing of a COVID-19 era emergency ventilator in a healthy rabbit lung model |
title_full | Efficacy and safety testing of a COVID-19 era emergency ventilator in a healthy rabbit lung model |
title_fullStr | Efficacy and safety testing of a COVID-19 era emergency ventilator in a healthy rabbit lung model |
title_full_unstemmed | Efficacy and safety testing of a COVID-19 era emergency ventilator in a healthy rabbit lung model |
title_short | Efficacy and safety testing of a COVID-19 era emergency ventilator in a healthy rabbit lung model |
title_sort | efficacy and safety testing of a covid-19 era emergency ventilator in a healthy rabbit lung model |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8919917/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35287761 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42490-022-00059-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT whitelukea efficacyandsafetytestingofacovid19eraemergencyventilatorinahealthyrabbitlungmodel AT maxeybenjamins efficacyandsafetytestingofacovid19eraemergencyventilatorinahealthyrabbitlungmodel AT solitrogiovannif efficacyandsafetytestingofacovid19eraemergencyventilatorinahealthyrabbitlungmodel AT takeihidehiro efficacyandsafetytestingofacovid19eraemergencyventilatorinahealthyrabbitlungmodel AT conradstevena efficacyandsafetytestingofacovid19eraemergencyventilatorinahealthyrabbitlungmodel AT alexanderjsteven efficacyandsafetytestingofacovid19eraemergencyventilatorinahealthyrabbitlungmodel |