IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0242532.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Computational simulation to assess patient safety of uncompensated COVID-19 two-patient ventilator sharing using the Pulse Physiology Engine

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey B Webb
  • Aaron Bray
  • Philip K Asare
  • Rachel B Clipp
  • Yatin B Mehta
  • Sudheer Penupolu
  • Aalpen A Patel
  • S Mark Poler

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is stretching medical resources internationally, sometimes creating ventilator shortages that complicate clinical and ethical situations. The possibility of needing to ventilate multiple patients with a single ventilator raises patient health and safety concerns in addition to clinical conditions needing treatment. Wherever ventilators are employed, additional tubing and splitting adaptors may be available. Adjustable flow-compensating resistance for differences in lung compliance on individual limbs may not be readily implementable. By exploring a number and range of possible contributing factors using computational simulation without risk of patient harm, this paper attempts to define useful bounds for ventilation parameters when compensatory resistance in limbs of a shared breathing circuit is not possible. This desperate approach to shared ventilation support would be a last resort when alternatives have been exhausted. Methods: A whole-body computational physiology model (using lumped parameters) was used to simulate each patient being ventilated. The primary model of a single patient with a dedicated ventilator was augmented to model two patients sharing a single ventilator. In addition to lung mechanics or estimation of CO2 and pH expected for set ventilation parameters (considerations of lung physiology alone), full physiological simulation provides estimates of additional values for oxyhemoglobin saturation, arterial oxygen tension, and other patient parameters. A range of ventilator settings and patient characteristics were simulated for paired patients. Findings: To be useful for clinicians, attention has been directed to clinically available parameters. These simulations show patient outcome during multi-patient ventilation is most closely correlated to lung compliance, oxygenation index, oxygen saturation index, and end-tidal carbon dioxide of individual patients. The simulated patient outcome metrics were satisfactory when the lung compliance difference between two patients was less than 12 mL/cmH2O, 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 that option is unavailable and ventilator sharing using limbs without flow resistance compensation is the only available alternative, these simulations provide a conceptual framework and guidelines for clinical patient selection.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey B Webb & Aaron Bray & Philip K Asare & Rachel B Clipp & Yatin B Mehta & Sudheer Penupolu & Aalpen A Patel & S Mark Poler, 2020. "Computational simulation to assess patient safety of uncompensated COVID-19 two-patient ventilator sharing using the Pulse Physiology Engine," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0242532
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242532
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242532
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242532&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0242532?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0242532. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.