Experimental validation of a novel portable device integrating an oxygen concentrator and a ventilation module for patients with ALI/ARDS in low resource countries: a cross-over non-inferiority trial.
Sofia Poletto, John Diaper, Aurora Montanarini, Giovanni Merighi, Fabienne Fontao, Xavier Belin, Emanuela Zannin, Walid Habre, Raffaele L Dellacà
{"title":"Experimental validation of a novel portable device integrating an oxygen concentrator and a ventilation module for patients with ALI/ARDS in low resource countries: a cross-over non-inferiority trial.","authors":"Sofia Poletto, John Diaper, Aurora Montanarini, Giovanni Merighi, Fabienne Fontao, Xavier Belin, Emanuela Zannin, Walid Habre, Raffaele L Dellacà","doi":"10.1038/s41390-024-03792-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This non-inferiority, cross-over study aims to evaluate a novel proof-of-concept portable respiratory support device specifically designed for low-resource settings. The device integrates a ventilation module and an oxygen concentrator.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We studied twelve 4-week-old piglets with a mean weight of 8.4 kg before and after oleic acid-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In each condition, animals received 1-h pressure control ventilation using a conventional ventilator (Servo-i, Getinge, SE) and the experimental ventilator in random sequence. Arterial blood gas analysis was performed every half-hour to adjust the ventilator settings. The primary outcome was partial pressure of oxygen to FiO<sub>2</sub> ratio (P/F) with a non-inferiority margin of 50 mmHg.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>P/F did not differ significantly between the experimental and the control ventilation at baseline (459.6(30.9) vs 454.4(28.6) mmHg) and during ARDS condition (165.1(36.9) vs 182.5(48.4) mmHg). The upper 95% CI of the difference between P/F after ventilation using the control and the experimental ventilator was 37.3 and 44.1 mmHg during baseline and ARDS, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The experimental device was not inferior to a conventional ventilator during both baseline and ARDS conditions, suggesting that it can provide adequate treatment to infants with mild to moderate hypoxemic lung disease in resource-limited care settings.</p><p><strong>Impact statement: </strong>This manuscript provides the results of a non-inferiority study that compared a novel proof-of-concept respiratory support device, integrating a ventilation module and an oxygen concentrator, specifically designed for respiratory support in low-resource settings, with a conventional pediatric intensive care ventilator in an oleic-acid model of acute lung injury. Our results showed that the experimental device was non-inferior to a conventional ventilator, suggesting that it can provide adequate treatment to infants with mild to moderate hypoxemic lung disease in resource-limited care settings. The developed solution can also be relevant for other applications, including home mechanical ventilation.</p>","PeriodicalId":19829,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-024-03792-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: This non-inferiority, cross-over study aims to evaluate a novel proof-of-concept portable respiratory support device specifically designed for low-resource settings. The device integrates a ventilation module and an oxygen concentrator.
Methods: We studied twelve 4-week-old piglets with a mean weight of 8.4 kg before and after oleic acid-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In each condition, animals received 1-h pressure control ventilation using a conventional ventilator (Servo-i, Getinge, SE) and the experimental ventilator in random sequence. Arterial blood gas analysis was performed every half-hour to adjust the ventilator settings. The primary outcome was partial pressure of oxygen to FiO2 ratio (P/F) with a non-inferiority margin of 50 mmHg.
Results: P/F did not differ significantly between the experimental and the control ventilation at baseline (459.6(30.9) vs 454.4(28.6) mmHg) and during ARDS condition (165.1(36.9) vs 182.5(48.4) mmHg). The upper 95% CI of the difference between P/F after ventilation using the control and the experimental ventilator was 37.3 and 44.1 mmHg during baseline and ARDS, respectively.
Conclusions: The experimental device was not inferior to a conventional ventilator during both baseline and ARDS conditions, suggesting that it can provide adequate treatment to infants with mild to moderate hypoxemic lung disease in resource-limited care settings.
Impact statement: This manuscript provides the results of a non-inferiority study that compared a novel proof-of-concept respiratory support device, integrating a ventilation module and an oxygen concentrator, specifically designed for respiratory support in low-resource settings, with a conventional pediatric intensive care ventilator in an oleic-acid model of acute lung injury. Our results showed that the experimental device was non-inferior to a conventional ventilator, suggesting that it can provide adequate treatment to infants with mild to moderate hypoxemic lung disease in resource-limited care settings. The developed solution can also be relevant for other applications, including home mechanical ventilation.
期刊介绍:
Pediatric Research publishes original papers, invited reviews, and commentaries on the etiologies of children''s diseases and
disorders of development, extending from molecular biology to epidemiology. Use of model organisms and in vitro techniques
relevant to developmental biology and medicine are acceptable, as are translational human studies