Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig. 1.
A: EPV100. B: Carevent ALS. C: Pneupac VR1. D: Medumat Easy. E: Oxylator EMX. F: Vortran VAR-Plus.
- Fig. 2.
Mean tidal volume variation over all the FIO2, compliance, and resistance conditions, with the volume-cycled ventilators.
- Fig. 3.
Measured tidal volume (VT), measured peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), and measured PEEP (inherent to these ventilators' operation) with the pressure-cycled ventilators, at set PIP values of 15 and 20 cm H2O (indicated by the solid lines), set resistance values of 5, 10, and 20 cm H2O/L/s (R5, R10, and R20), and set compliance values of 30, 70, and 120 mL/cm H2O (C30, C70, and C120). The data bars indicate the mean values, and the error bars represent the standard deviations. With the VAR-Plus, measured PIP was significantly different from the set PIP. There was major variability in delivered VT during single tests (standard deviation of 50–100%). * P = .005. † P < .001.
- Fig. 4.
Ergonomy test results. The data bars represent the median times to complete the ventilator set-up and adjustment tasks. After 180 seconds a task was considered failed. Alarm silencing was only possible with the EPV100, so it is not shown. Alarm reading time was longest with the Carevent ALS, whereas it is only represented by the maximum pressure value for the relief valve, which is written in a very small font. * P = .03. † P = .005.
Tables
