Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 34, Issue 9, pp 1669–1675 | Cite as

Trigger performance of mid-level ICU mechanical ventilators during assisted ventilation: a bench study

  • Juliana C. Ferreira
  • Daniel W. Chipman
  • Robert M. Kacmarek



To compare the triggering performance of mid-level ICU mechanical ventilators with a standard ICU mechanical ventilator.


Experimental bench study.


The respiratory care laboratory of a university-affiliated teaching hospital.


A computerized mechanical lung model, the IngMar ASL5000.


Ten mid-level ICU ventilators were compared to an ICU ventilator at two levels of lung model effort, three combinations of respiratory mechanics (normal, COPD and ARDS) and two modes of ventilation, volume and pressure assist/control. A total of 12 conditions were compared.

Measurements and main results

Performance varied widely among ventilators. Mean inspiratory trigger time was <100 ms for only half of the tested ventilators. The mean inspiratory delay time (time from initiation of the breath to return of airway pressure to baseline) was longer than that for the ICU ventilator for all tested ventilators except one. The pressure drop during triggering (Ptrig) was comparable with that of the ICU ventilator for only two ventilators. Expiratory Settling Time (time for pressure to return to baseline) had the greatest variability among ventilators.


Triggering differences among these mid-level ICU ventilators and with the ICU ventilator were identified. Some of these ventilators had a much poorer triggering response with high inspiratory effort than the ICU ventilator. These ventilators do not perform as well as ICU ventilators in patients with high ventilatory demand.


Ventilators Mechanical Respiratory mechanics Respiration Artificial Intensive care units Equipment safety Models Biological 


  1. 1.
    Takeuchi M, Williams P, Hess D, Kacmarek RM (2002) Continuous positive airway pressure in new-generation mechanical ventilators: a lung model study. Anesthesiology 96:162–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Richard JC, Carlucci A, Breton L, Langlais N, Jaber S, Maggiore S, Fougere S, Harf A, Brochard L (2002) Bench testing of pressure support ventilation with three different generations of ventilators. Intensive Care Med 28:1049–1057PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chatmongkolchart S, Williams P, Hess DR, Kacmarek RM (2001) Evaluation of inspiratory rise time and inspiration termination criteria in new-generation mechanical ventilators: a lung model study. Respir Care 46:666–677PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tassaux D, Strasser S, Fonseca S, Dalmas E, Jolliet P (2002) Comparative bench study of triggering, pressurization, and cycling between the home ventilator VPAP II and three ICU ventilators. Intensive Care Med 28:1254–1261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stell IM, Paul G, Lee KC, Ponte J, Moxham J (2001) Noninvasive ventilator triggering in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A test lung comparison. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 164:2092–2097PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bunburaphong T, Imanaka H, Nishimura M, Hess D, Kacmarek RM (1997) Performance characteristics of bilevel pressure ventilators: a lung model study. Chest 111:1050–1060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Battisti A, Tassaux D, Janssens JP, Michotte JB, Jaber S, Jolliet P (2005) Performance characteristics of 10 home mechanical ventilators in pressure-support mode: a comparative bench study. Chest 127:1784–1792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miyoshi E, Fujino Y, Mashimo T, Nishimura M (2000) Performance of transport ventilator with patient-triggered ventilation. Chest 118:1109–1115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zanetta G, Robert D, Guerin C (2002) Evaluation of ventilators used during transport of ICU patients—a bench study. Intensive Care Med 28:443–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramar K, Sassoon CS (2005) Potential advantages of patient–ventilator synchrony. [review] [50 refs]. Respir Care Clin N Am 11:307–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tobin MJ, Jubran A, Laghi F (2001) Patient–ventilator interaction. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 163:1059–1063PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kondili E, Xirouchaki N, Georgopoulos D (2007) Modulation and treatment of patient–ventilator dyssynchrony. Curr Opin Crit Care 13:84–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bigatello LM, Nishimura M, Imanaka H, Hess D, Kimball WR, Kacmarek RM (1997) Unloadiing of the work of breathing by proportional assist ventilation in a lung model. Crit Care Med 25:267–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sassoon CS, Foster GT (2001) Patient–ventilator asynchrony. Curr Opin Crit Care 7:28–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prinianakis G, Kondili E, Georgopoulos D (2005) Patient–ventilator interaction: an overview. Respir Care Clin N Am 11:201–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Williams P, Kratohvil J, Ritz R, Hess DR, Kacmarek RM (2000) Pressure support and pressure assist/control: are there differences? an evaluation of the newest intensive care unit ventilators. Respir Care 45:1169–1181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ferreira CJ, Chipman DW, Kacmarek RM (2006) (Abstract) Performance of mechanical ventilators in the setting of patient effort: a bench study. Respir Care 51:1284Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lofaso F, Brochard L, Hang T, Lorino H, Harf A, Isabey D (1996) Home versus intensive care pressure support devices. experimental and clinical comparison. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 153:1591–1599PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juliana C. Ferreira
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daniel W. Chipman
    • 3
  • Robert M. Kacmarek
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Departments of Respiratory Care and Anesthesia and Critical CareMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Pulmonary Division, Respiratory ICUHospital das Clinicas, University of Sao PauloSao PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Respiratory Care Services—Ellison 401Massachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of AnesthesiaHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations