Dataset Information

Emergency ventilator for COVID-19.

ABSTRACT: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the world in 2020 by spreading at unprecedented rates and causing tens of thousands of fatalities within a few months. The number of deaths dramatically increased in regions where the number of patients in need of hospital care exceeded the availability of care. Many COVID-19 patients experience Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), a condition that can be treated with mechanical ventilation. In response to the need for mechanical ventilators, designed and tested an emergency ventilator (EV) that can control a patient's peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) and breathing rate, while keeping a positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP). This article describes the rapid design, prototyping, and testing of the EV. The development process was enabled by rapid design iterations using additive manufacturing (AM). In the initial design phase, iterations between design, AM, and testing enabled a working prototype within one week. The designs of the 16 different components of the ventilator were locked by additively manufacturing and testing a total of 283 parts having parametrically varied dimensions. In the second stage, AM was used to produce 75 functional prototypes to support engineering evaluation and animal testing. The devices were tested over more than two million cycles. We also developed an electronic monitoring system and with automatic alarm to provide for safe operation, along with training materials and user guides. The final designs are available online under a free license. The designs have been transferred to more than 70 organizations in 15 countries. This project demonstrates the potential for ultra-fast product design, engineering, and testing of medical devices needed for COVID-19 emergency response.

SUBMITTER: King WP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7773325 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Emergency ventilator for COVID-19.

King William P WP Amos Jennifer J Azer Magdi M Baker Daniel D Bashir Rashid R Best Catherine C Bethke Eliot E Boppart Stephen A SA Bralts Elisabeth E Corey Ryan M RM Dietkus Rachael R Durack Gary G Elbel Stefan S Elliott Greg G Fava Jake J Goldenfeld Nigel N Goldstein Molly H MH Hayes Courtney C Herndon Nicole N Jamison Shandra S Johnson Blake B Johnson Harley H Johnson Mark M Kolaczynski John J Lee Tonghun T Maslov Sergei S McGregor Davis J DJ Milner Derek D Moller Ralf R Mosley Jonathan J Musser Andy A Newberger Max M Null David D O'Bryan Lucas L Oelze Michael M O'Leary Jerry J Pagano Alex A Philpott Michael M Pianfetti Brian B Pille Alex A Pizzuto Luca L Ricconi Brian B Rubessa Marcello M Rylowicz Sam S Shipley Clifford C Singer Andrew C AC Stewart Brian B Switzky Rachel R Tawfick Sameh S Wheeler Matthew M White Karen K Widloski Evan M EM Wood Eric E Wood Charles C Wooldridge Abigail R AR

PloS one 20201230 12

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the world in 2020 by spreading at unprecedented rates and causing tens of thousands of fatalities within a few months. The number of deaths dramatically increased in regions where the number of patients in need of hospital care exceeded the availability of care. Many COVID-19 patients experience Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), a condition that can be treated with mechanical ventilation. In response to the need for mechanical ventilators, designed and t ...[more]

PMID: 33378363

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsNew 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 O2 saturation, end tidal CO2, 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.ResultsAll 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 CO2 was significantly higher on the FALCON, and arterial blood gas measurements demonstrated lower arterial partial pressure of O2 at 30 min and higher arterial partial pressure of CO2 at 30 and 60 min using the FALCON. However, when ventilated at higher respiratory rates, we observed a stepwise decrease in end tidal CO2. 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.ConclusionsAlthough 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.

Dataset Information

Emergency ventilator for COVID-19.

Publications

Emergency ventilator for COVID-19.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets