• Mark J Heulitt, Tracy L Thurman, Shirley J Holt, and Elizabeth A Storm.
• From the Sections of *Pediatric Critical Care Medicine and †Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Medicine; and ‡Respiratory Care, Arkansas Children's Hospital, Little Rock, AR.
• Pediatr Emerg Care. 2014 Mar 1;30(3):161-8.

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate 2 transport ventilators utilizing both a test lung and a pediatric animal model.MethodsTwo transport ventilators were utilized for evaluations. A test lung or intubated, sedated pigs (n = 9) with healthy and injured lungs were ventilated using control and support modes. A test lung was used to evaluate alarm responsiveness, FIO2 accuracy, oxygen consumption, and duration of battery power. Pigs were utilized to evaluate the exhalation valve, ventilator response, volume accuracy, and noninvasive functionality. Respiratory mechanics were determined using a forced oscillation technique, and airway flow and pressure waveforms were acquired utilizing a pneumotachograph.ResultsFor both ventilators, FIO2 accuracy was within 10% error. On an E cylinder of oxygen, the EMV+ operated for 3 hours 48 minutes and the LTV 1200 for 1 hour 4 minutes. On battery power, the LTV 1200 ventilated for 6 hours 51 minutes and the EMV+ for 12 hours 8 minutes. Ventilator response time was less (36%), and delta pressure was greater (38%) for the EMV+ utilizing noninvasive ventilation. The percent error for displayed volume was less than 10% for the EMV+.ConclusionsIn this study, we demonstrate that there are differences between the 2 ventilators in regard to oxygen consumption, duration of battery power, and volume accuracy. Clinicians should be aware of these differences to optimize the choice and use of both ventilators depending on clinical need/setting.

16 keywords...

hide…