Re: Vents

["John R. Clark" <jclark@piercelaw.edu>]

For what it's worth:

[1999]LAB EVALUATION OF THE PULMONETICS LTV 1000 VENTILATOR
John Newhart CRTT, RCP, Danielle Rice, Richard M. Ford BS.RRT, UCSD Medical 
Center, San Diego, CA.
Background: Electronic and mechanical miniaturization has made it possible 
to compress what was once a large ICU ventilator into a laptop-sized, 
portable ventilator. With its internal battery and miniature blower, it is 
self-contained, except for an oxygen source necessary only to deliver FIO2 
above .21. Our objective was to evaluate the LTV for accuracy of volume 
delivery under varied patient loads and power source conditions. The 
ventilator was tested under the following power source conditions: 1) A/C 
power, 2) battery fully charged, 3) battery 50% depleted, and 4) with the 
battery “empty,” a warning that the battery is at its lowest charge level, 
with less than 10 min. of use left before a complete shutdown. A Vt change 
of less than 10% across all conditions was considered acceptable. Methods: 
The LTV was set to deliver a Vt of .700L to a test lung (TTL Michigan 
Instruments) under various combinations of compliance and airway resistance 
and powered under different conditions (see table). A VenTrack 1550 
(Novametrix Inc.) was connected at the airway to measure delivered tidal 
volume and monitor airway pressure. Three sample readings were averaged for 
each of the test situations. The ventilator was allowed to stabilize for 60 
sec. before readings were taken. Results: The largest average Vt .728L was 
under “Baseline conditions”. The lowest average Vt .660L was under the 
highest test lung load with “Battery Empty” conditions. Conclusion: The 
difference in Vt due to changes in power supply conditions are between 3% 
and 5%. The difference in Vt due to changes in test lung load are between 
3% and 6%. Some of this can be accounted for in the ventilator circuit 
compliance. A situation in which all of the worst conditions were to occur 
are not only highly unlikely, but still causes less than a 10% change. 
Under all conditions tested, there was a minimal effect on ventilator 
output. We find the effect to be clinically insignificant.

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:32:13 -0500, Tony Scott <medic1@sccoast.net> wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>
> I am currently working with a ground CCT and we use the Pulmonetics LTV 
> 1000
> vent.  Just wondering if anyone is using it in their flight programs and 
> any
> opinions you may have on it.
>
> Thanks a gazillion!
>
> Tony Scott, FP-C, CCEMT-P
> HeartReach / ChildReach CCT
> McLeod Regional Medical Center
> Florence, SC
>
> **Help your kids feel safe, 'cause NO one EVER grew up in times like
> these.**
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Flightmed mailing list
> To unsubscribe or change your email address, go to 
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/flightmed
>
>



-- 
John R. Clark, BS, NREMT-P, FP-C
National Flight Paramedics Association
www.nfpa.rotor.com
clarkjrc@alumni.gwu.edu
W: (603) 456-2155


_______________________________________________
Flightmed mailing list
To unsubscribe or change your email address, go to http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/flightmed