Simulated Ventilation of Two Patients With a Single Ventilator in a Pandemic Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Simultaneous ventilation of two patients, e.g., due to a shortage of ventilators in a pandemic, may result in hypoventilation in one patient and hyperinflation in the other patient. Methods: In a simulation of double patient ventilation using artificial lungs with equal compliances (70mL∙mbar-1), we tried to voluntarily direct gas flow to one patient by using 3D-printed y-adapters and stenosis adapters during volume-, and pressure-controlled ventilation. Subsequently, we modified the model using a special one-way valve on the limited flow side and measured in pressure-controlled ventilation with the flow sensor adjusted on either side in a second and third setup. In the last setup, we also measured with different lung compliances.Results: Volume- or pressure-controlled ventilation using standard connection tubes with the same compliance in each lung resulted in comparable minute volumes in both lungs, even if one side was obstructed to 3mm (6.6±0.2vs.6.5±0.1L for volume-controlled ventilation, p=.25 continuous severe alarm and 7.4±0.1vs.6.1±0.1L for pressure-controlled ventilation, p=.02 no alarm). In the second setup, pressure-controlled ventilation resulted at a 3mm flow limitation in minute ventilation of 9.4±0.3vs3.5±0.1L∙min-1, p=.001. In a third setup using the special one-way valve and the flow sensor on the unobstructed side, pressure-controlled ventilation resulted at a 3mm flow limitation in minute ventilation of 7.4±0.2vs3±0L∙min-1, at the compliance of 70mL∙mbar-1 for both lungs, 7.2±0vs4.1±0L∙ min-1, at the compliances of 50 vs. 70mL∙mbar-1, and 7.2±0.2vs5.7±0L∙ min-1, at the compliance of 30 vs. 70mL∙mbar-1 (all p=.001).Conclusions: Overriding a modern intensive care ventilator's safety features are possible, thereby ventilating two lungs with one ventilator simultaneously in a laboratory simulation using 3D-printed y-adapters. Directing tidal volumes in different pulmonary conditions towards one lung using 3D-printed flow limiters with diameters <6mm was also possible. While this ventilation setting was technically feasible in a bench model, it would be volatile, if not dangerous in a clinical situation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".