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

Evaluation of a Multifunction Ventilator Compared to a Commonly Used Ventilator in Pressure Control Ventilation

Scott Allen Sherwood, Belinda Renee Martins and Lonny Ashworth
Respiratory Care October 2021, 66 (Suppl 10) 3611723;
Scott Allen Sherwood
Respiratory Therapy, Boise State University, Meridian, Idaho, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Belinda Renee Martins
Respiratory Therapy, Boise State University, Meridian, Idaho, United States
Respiratory Therapy, Duke University Hospital, Durham, North Carolina, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lonny Ashworth
Respiratory Therapy, Boise State University, Meridian, Idaho, 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: The VOCSN (Ventilator, Oxygen, Cough, Suction, and Nebulizer) is a ventilator classified as a critical care ventilator and is also used as a home ventilator. The VOCSN is compatible as an invasive, noninvasive, and mouthpiece ventilator. This study was to evaluate the performance of the VOCSN, in PC AC, compared to the Philips Respironics V60 in PCV.

Methods: To evaluate each ventilator, the IngMar Medical ASL 5000 Electronic Breathing Simulator (ASL 5000) was used. The ASL 5000 was used to trigger breaths and simulate patient lung mechanics for three different lung models: Normal, COPD and ARDS. Lung models were set as follows, Normal: resistance inspiratory 13 cm H2O/L/s, resistance expiratory 12 cm H2O/L/s, static compliance 54 mL/cm H2O, spontaneous rate 10 breaths/min and Pmus 8 cm H2O; COPD: resistance inspiratory 22 cm H2O/L/s, resistance expiratory 18 cm H2O/L/s, static compliance 59 mL/cm H2O, spontaneous rate 10 breaths/min and Pmus 8 cm H2O; ARDS: resistance inspiratory 12 cm H2O/L/s, resistance expiratory 14 cm H2O/L/s, static compliance 39 mL/cm H2O, spontaneous rate 10 breaths/min and Pmus 8 cm H2O. The mode on the VOCSN was PC AC; the mode on the Phillips V60 was PCV without autotrak. Each mode, at each disease state, was run on the ASL 5000 for at least 3 min. The settings were as follows: set inspiratory pressure 10 cm H2O, set PIP 20 cm H2O, PEEP 10 cm H2O, inspiratory time 1 s and respiratory rate 5 breaths/min.

Results: The time to trigger, as noted in the table, shows that the VOCSN has a prolonged time to trigger compared to the V60. Peak pressure, PEEP and PEEPtot were all relatively comparable and did not fluctuate much from each other. Inspiratory tidal volumes were smaller on the VOCSN in comparison to the V60, with the largest difference amongst all patient scenarios of 102 (mL). Time to Pmin after the start of inspiratory effort was delayed more on the VOCSN than the V60. Maximum pressure drop during trigger was greater on the VOCSN than the V60, indicating a greater effort to trigger on the VOCSN compared to the V60.

Conclusions: There are similarities and differences between the two ventilators, as is true with most ventilators. It is important to monitor the patient and the ventilator closely to ensure proper ventilation is being administered. Each ventilator function has its purpose for individual needs of patients in the hospital and in the home. It's imperative that the clinician meets the needs of the patient effectively and efficiently.

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Footnotes

  • Commercial Relationships: None

  • Copyright © 2021 by Daedalus Enterprises
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care
Vol. 66, Issue Suppl 10
1 Oct 2021
  • 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.
Evaluation of a Multifunction Ventilator Compared to a Commonly Used Ventilator in Pressure Control Ventilation
(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
Evaluation of a Multifunction Ventilator Compared to a Commonly Used Ventilator in Pressure Control Ventilation
Scott Allen Sherwood, Belinda Renee Martins, Lonny Ashworth
Respiratory Care Oct 2021, 66 (Suppl 10) 3611723;

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Evaluation of a Multifunction Ventilator Compared to a Commonly Used Ventilator in Pressure Control Ventilation
Scott Allen Sherwood, Belinda Renee Martins, Lonny Ashworth
Respiratory Care Oct 2021, 66 (Suppl 10) 3611723;
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