Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic is stretching medical resources internationally, including creating ventilator short-ages that complicate clinical and ethical situations. The possibility of needing to ventilate multiple patients with a single ventilator raises patient health and safety concerns. This simulation study explores patient compatibility and ventilator settings during multi-patient ventilation without the use of flow compensating resistances.
Methods A whole-body computational physiology model was used to simulate each patient on a ventilator. The primary model of a single patient with a dedicated ventilator was augmented to model two patients sharing a single ventilator. A range of ventilator settings and patient characteristics were simulated for paired patients. In addition to mechanical ventilation parameters, the full physiological simulation provides estimates of additional values for oxyhemoglobin saturation, arterial oxygen tension, and other patient parameters.
Findings These simulations show patient outcome during multi-patient ventilation is most closely correlated to lung compliance, oxygenation index, oxygen saturation index, and endtidal carbon dioxide of individual patients. The simulated patient outcome metrics were satisfactory when the lung compliance difference between two patients was less than 12 cmH2O/mL, and the oxygen saturation index difference was less than 2 mmHg.
Interpretation In resource-limited regions of the world, the COVID-19 pandemic will result in equipment shortages. While single-patient ventilation is preferable, if unavailable, these simulations provide a conceptual framework for clinical patient selection guidelines if ventilator sharing is the only available alternative.
Funding Kitware employees were internally supported by Kitware. Bucknell and Geisinger participants contributed their time.
Evidence before this study If numbers of patients requiring mechanical ventilation exceed the number of available ventilators in a surge, shared branched ventilator circuits have been proposed for sharing one ventilator by multiple patients. Only rudimentary laboratory or clinical studies have been reported. Testing over expected ranges of lung-chest wall compliance has not been found. Few clinical experiences of mechanical ventilation parameters employed for COVID-19 patients have been reported.
Added value of this study The number of possible combinations of ventilation and physiological parameters is very large. Time and resource constraints do not permit conventional research. Computational simulation provides rapid sensitivity evaluation of several factors over a wide range of hypothetical ventilation conditions. Envelopes of evaluated parameters may provide reasonably estimated safety boundaries for clinicians compelled in an emergency surge to employ a poorly characterized practice. A previously well-vetted computational model for ventilation of a single patient by a dedicated ventilator has been modified to model the sharing of a single ventilator by two or more patients. Only pairings of two equally sized 70 kg patients are modeled in this report. These simulations provide estimates of effects on ventilation and blood oxygenation by clinically measurable values using conceivable mismatched patient lung compliance and oxygenation (diffusion and shunt).
Implications of all the available evidence These estimates are for pressure mode ventilation using a single ventilator shared by branched breathing apparatus for paired patients. Individual patient flow restriction to compensate for compliance mismatch is not considered. Reasonable though arbitrary bounds of acceptable parameters may guide clinicians when determining pairings of patients with different physiological characteristics. Further laboratory testing and clinical experience will be needed to determine the validity or utility of these assessments. Different simulations will be needed for flow-compensated branches, more than two patients, and unmatched body habitus.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received. Kitware employees were internally supported by Kitware. Bucknell and Geisinger participants contributed their time.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data is available as open source (Apache License, Version 2.0).
https://gitlab.kitware.com/physiology/engine/-/tags/STUDY_MULTIPLEX_VENTILATION_1_0_0
