When Resources Are Scarce - Feasibility of Emergency Ventilation of Two Patients With One Ventilator

  1. Peter C. Reinacher
  2. Thomas E. Schlaepfer
  3. Martin A. Schick
  4. Jürgen Beck
  5. Hartmut Bürkle
  6. Stefan Schumann

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

A potential shortage of intensive care ventilators has led to the idea to ventilate more than one patient with a single ventilator. Besides other problems, this is associated with the lack of knowledge concerning distribution of tidal volume and the patients’ individual respiratory system mechanics.

In this study we used two simple hand-manufactured adaptors to connect physical models of two adult respiratory systems to one ventilator. The artificial lungs were ventilated in the pressure-controlled mode and we investigated if disconnecting one lung from the ventilation circuit for several breaths would allow to determine reliably the other lung’s tidal volume and compliance.

Compliances and volumes were measured both with the ventilator and external sensors corresponded well. However, tidal volumes measured via the ventilator were smaller compared to the tidal volumes measured via the external sensors with an absolute error of 5.3 ± 2.5%. The tidal volumes of the individual artificial lungs were distributed in proportion to the compliances and did not differ relevantly when both artificial lungs were connected to when one was disconnected.

We conclude that in case of emergency, ventilation of two patients with one ventilator requires two simple hand-crafted tubes as adaptors and available standard breathing circuit components. In such a setting, respiratory system mechanics and tidal volume of each individual patient can be reliably measured during short term clamping of the tracheal tube of the respective other patient.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.10.20060525: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.10.20060525v1 on medRxiv