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.

Project description:ObjectivesVentilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections (VA-LRTIs) are associated with prolonged length of stay and increased mortality. We aimed to investigate the occurrence of bacterial VA-LRTI among mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients and compare these findings to non-COVID-19 cohorts throughout the first and second wave of the pandemic.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingKarolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.PatientsAll patients greater than or equal to 18 years treated with mechanical ventilation between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2020.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsThe cohort consisted of 20,223 ICU episodes (479 COVID-19), with a VA-LRTI incidence proportion of 30% (129/426) in COVID-19 and 18% (1,081/5,907) in non-COVID-19 among patients ventilated greater than or equal to 48 hours. The median length of ventilator treatment for COVID-19 patients was 10 days (interquartile range, 5-18 d), which was significantly longer than for all other investigated specific diagnoses. The VA-LRTI incidence rate per 1,000 ventilator days at risk was 31 (95% CI, 26-37) for COVID-19 and 34 (95% CI, 32-36) for non-COVID-19. With COVID-19 as reference, adjusted subdistribution hazard ratios for VA-LRTI was 0.29-0.50 (95% CI, < 1) for influenza, bacterial pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and severe sepsis, but 1.38 (95% CI, 1.15-1.65) for specific noninfectious diagnoses. Compared with COVID-19 in the first wave of the pandemic, COVID-19 in the second wave had adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.14-2.99). In early VA-LRTI Staphylococcus aureus was more common and Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Escherichia coli less common in COVID-19 patients, while Serratia species was more often identified in late VA-LRTI.ConclusionsCOVID-19 is associated with exceptionally long durations of mechanical ventilation treatment and high VA-LRTI occurrence proportions. The incidence rate of VA-LRTI was compared with the pooled non-COVID-19 cohort, however, not increased in COVID-19. Significant differences in the incidence of VA-LRTI occurred between the first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has revealed an immense, unmet and international need for available ventilators. Both clinical and engineering groups around the globe have responded through the development of "homemade" or do-it-yourself (DIY) ventilators. Several designs have been prototyped, tested, and shared over the internet. However, many open source DIY ventilators require extensive familiarity with microcontroller programming and electronics assembly, which many healthcare providers may lack. In light of this, we designed and bench tested a low-cost, pressure-controlled mechanical ventilator that is "plug and play" by design, where no end-user microcontroller programming is required. This Fast-AssembLy COVID-Nineteen (FALCON) emergency prototype ventilator can be rapidly assembled and could be readily modified and improved upon to potentially provide a ventilatory option when no other is present, especially in low- and middle-income countries.HypothesisWe anticipated that a minimal component prototype ventilator could be easily assembled that could reproduce pressure/flow waveforms and tidal volumes similar to a hospital grade ventilator (Engström CarestationTM).Materials and methodsWe benched-tested our prototype ventilator using an artificial test lung under 36 test conditions with varying respiratory rates, peak inspiratory pressures (PIP), positive end expiratory pressures (PEEP), and artificial lung compliances. Pressure and flow waveforms were recorded, and tidal volumes calculated with prototype ventilator performance compared to a hospital-grade ventilator (Engström CarestationTM) under identical test conditions.ResultsPressure and flow waveforms produced by the prototype ventilator were highly similar to the CarestationTM. The ventilator generated consistent PIP/PEEP, with tidal volume ranges similar to the CarestationTM. The FALCON prototype was tested continuously for a 5-day period without failure or significant changes in delivered PIP/PEEP.ConclusionThe FALCON prototype ventilator is an inexpensive and easily-assembled "plug and play" emergency ventilator design. The FALCON ventilator is currently a non-certified prototype that, following further appropriate validation and testing, might eventually be used as a life-saving emergency device in extraordinary circumstances when more sophisticated forms of ventilation are unavailable.

Dataset Information

Emergency ventilator for COVID-19.

Publications

Emergency ventilator for COVID-19.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets