• Carlos Delgado, Jose E Romero, Jaume Puig, Ana Izquierdo, Carlos Ferrando, F Javier Belda, and Marina Soro.
• Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Valencia, Spain. cardelna@gmail.com.
• Respir Care. 2017 Jan 1; 62 (1): 34-41.

BackgroundDuring recent years, ventilators using turbines as flow-generating systems have become increasingly more relevant. This bench study was designed to compare triggering and pressurization of 7 turbine mid-level ICU ventilators.MethodsWe used a dual-chamber lung model to test 7 mid-level ICU ventilators in pressure support mode with levels of 10, 15, and 20 cm H2O with 2 PEEP levels of 5 cm H2O and the minimum level allowed by the ventilator. A ventilator was connected to the master chamber to simulate 2 different effort levels. Pressure drop, trigger delay time, time to minimum pressure, and pressure time products (PTP) during trigger and the first 300 and 500 ms were analyzed.ResultsIn the trigger evaluation, the Savina had the highest delay time, whereas the C2, the V60, and the Trilogy had the lowest pressure drops and PTP values in both effort levels. In pressurization capacity assessment using ideal PTP300 and PTP500 percentages, the C2 and the V680 had the best results, and the Carina and the Savina had lower values, with no differences between both effort levels. Differences between PEEP levels did not seem to be relevant.ConclusionsPressure support mode for tested ventilators worked properly, but pressurization capacity and trigger function performance were clearly superior in the newest machines. The use of PEEP did not modify the results.Copyright © 2017 by Daedalus Enterprises.

20 keywords...

hide…