Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
Meeting ReportMechanical Ventilation – Part 3

Neonatal Invasive Pressure Support Ventilation: A Comparison of New Generation Adult ICU Ventilators

Carolyn La Vita, Beverly Ejiofor, Esther Chung and Robert M Kacmarek
Respiratory Care October 2019, 64 (Suppl 10) 3230250;
Carolyn La Vita
Respiratory Care, MGH, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Beverly Ejiofor
Respiratory Care, MGH, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Esther Chung
Respiratory Care, MGH, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert M Kacmarek
Respiratory Care, MGH, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

Background: Essentially all new generation adult ICU ventilators are designed to provide ventilation of neonates to adults. Nihon Kohden recently introduced a new ventilator to the market the NKV 500. To determine the performance of this ventilator during neonatal pressure support it needs to be compared to established ICU ventilators. In this study we compared the gas delivery capabilities of the new Nihon Kohden 550 ventilator (NKV 550) to that of the Medtronic PB980 and the Drager V500 ventilators. We hypothesized that if these ventilators were optimally set in pressure support ventilation there would be no differences in trigger response, pressurization time and volume delivery. Methods: Evaluations were performed with the IngMar ASL 5000 computerized lung simulator using a dry circuit and the Fisher & Paykel RT260 neonatal ventilator circuit. The ASL 5000 was set to simulate neonatal lung mechanics with a weak, normal and strong ventilatory drive (P0.1 1, 4.2 and 7.3 cm H2O) and inspiratory time varying from 250 to 400 milliseconds (ms). Evaluations were performed without a leak and with a leak (1 to 1.5 L/min). Ventilator trigger sensitivity, rise time and termination criteria were optimally set. Each ventilator was set to deliver 5/5, 10/5 and 15/10 cm H2O pressure support above PEEP. A total of 18 trials were conducted on each ventilator. Each trial lasted 2 min. The last 10 breath of each trial were analyzed. Trigger time (TT, ms), max pressure to trigger (MaxTrigP, cm H2O), time to max trigger pressure (T-Tpress, ms), trigger pressure time product (PTP, cm H2O -ms), time to 90% of peak pressure (T90, ms), and tidal volume (VT, mL) were compared among ventilators using ANOVA for repeated measures. Potentially important clinical differences were defined as a P < .001 and >10% difference among ventilators. Results: The only potentially clinically important difference identified among variables evaluated was maximum trigger pressure(see table). Even this difference, although it met our criteria (P < .001 and >10%), is small (-0.23 vs -0.28 cm H2O across ventilators) and unlikely clinically important. Conclusions: The NKV500, PB980 and V500 all performed similarly during this evaluation. The only potentially important difference was maximum trigger pressure. Disclosures: Robert Kacmarek is a consultant for Medtronic’s and Orange Medical and has received research grants from Medtronic’s and Venner Medical. All other authors report no conflict of interest

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Footnotes

  • Commercial Relationships: Consultant for Medtronics Received research grant from Medtronics Consultant for Orange Medical Received research grant from Orange Medical

  • Support: Nihon Kohden Orange Medical

  • Copyright © 2019 by Daedalus Enterprises
Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care
Vol. 64, Issue Suppl 10
1 Oct 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

 

Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Neonatal Invasive Pressure Support Ventilation: A Comparison of New Generation Adult ICU Ventilators
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Neonatal Invasive Pressure Support Ventilation: A Comparison of New Generation Adult ICU Ventilators
Carolyn La Vita, Beverly Ejiofor, Esther Chung, Robert M Kacmarek
Respiratory Care Oct 2019, 64 (Suppl 10) 3230250;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Neonatal Invasive Pressure Support Ventilation: A Comparison of New Generation Adult ICU Ventilators
Carolyn La Vita, Beverly Ejiofor, Esther Chung, Robert M Kacmarek
Respiratory Care Oct 2019, 64 (Suppl 10) 3230250;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References

Related Articles

Cited By...

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Reprints/Permissions

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire