Engineers 3D print ventilator splitters to treat more than one COVID-19 patient at once
Marie Donlon | April 03, 2020
The 3D-printed splitter. Source: Johns Hopkins UniversityA team of engineers from Johns Hopkins University is developing and prototyping a 3D-printed splitter that will make it possible for a single ventilator to simultaneously treat multiple patients.
As ventilators are in short supply due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the Johns Hopkins team has devised a way to safely treat more than one patient at a time with a single ventilator. To do this, the team has 3D printed a splitter that directs air flow to multiple patients at once from one ventilator.
Although ventilator splitters have been proposed as a solution to the ventilator shortage before, medical professionals have expressed concern that the devices spread germs and do not offer the appropriate amount of oxygen to intubated patients requiring different flow levels.
As such, the Johns Hopkins' team has designed a prototype that addresses both concerns with the addition of a filter for preventing cross contamination and an air flow controller and flow meter system that enables healthcare professionals to monitor and adjust individual flow rates to patients.
Ventilators are particularly critical for treating those who have developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). ARDS is the primary cause of death for COVID-19 patients wherein fluid builds in the patient’s lungs, limiting oxygen in the bloodstream and thereby depriving vital organs of oxygen.
The Johns Hopkins’ team hopes to begin testing the device immediately and has created the splitter so that it is easy to manufacture using 3D printing for quick deployment for those in need.
I find it hard to understand how it takes a team of scientists and engineers to develop a simple tee readily available a Ace hardware .
I remember how the Apollo mission and the lives of Astronauts was saved with duct tape and modifying simple components.
Today everything is over complicated. Why couldn't we build simple basic reproductions of the original ventilator and in a week have thousands available to save lives. I don't think the people saved will be concerned if the components come from Ace hardware or my basement if it saves there life.
In reply to #1
Because you never did it.
i had done some volunteered work where I design an oxygen splitter for use in a 3rd world country. You need to also control the flow rate as well.
now granted, where this was volunteer work where I did this on my own time, it still took 6 weeks.
when I designed it, like a lot of designs, it evolved where the designed changed sometimes radically where I started over. And the outcome was (2) designs which I submitted.
One was very quickly and easily produced, I believe I printed it in about 4-5 hours
the second was more envolved with more control to the settings. I printed it 8-12 hours.
In reply to #5
My final comment is if I had a choice of dieing or being hooked up to a hand made device I would take that chance rather than suffocating in the hallway of a hospital.
If it was 1945 or maybe up to 1975 then what I'm suggesting would be being done and people would find a way to make it work.
today everyone just gives up or finds a way to say it can't be done or we might be sued rather than taking action.
I appreciate your efforts to get it done and accept it may be more difficult than it sounds but those are obstacles I have spent a lifetime overcoming and we all could use a few episodes of Macgiver right now
In reply to #6
You need to consider the statistics more carefully. The risk of dying on the contraption as it goes wrong may well be greater than the risk when staying off it.
In reply to #7
SE earlier post on a earlier thread that had a video That shows why a ventilator is needed and the problems that could occur that backs up your claim. GA.
In reply to #6
It is not a "simple tee":
.
"The new design includes an air-flow controller and flow meters, allowing clinicians to monitor and adjust air flow for each patient. The air volume controller is a key addition because each intubated patient requires different flow control. The team is also adding a filter designed to prevent cross-contamination between patients—important because early reports suggest that those exposed to multiple infected people experience worse outcomes."
As a former intensivist I find it incredible that this idea has even got out of bed. Patients come in different sizes and degrees of sickness. Even if you standardise the ventilation rate, you need different volumes and different oxygen percentages. Even after that the whole assumption is that the lung compliance remains fixed (it doesn't) and that the patients do not attempt to breathe against the ventilator (they often do).
When it comes to weaning the patient off the ventilator, that's a whole new can of worms. in the good old days we just used to disconnect the ventilator and hope, but that is a very labour-intensive weaning method. i would much rather work with a ventilator which goes into assist mode, noting when a patient tries to breathe on his own and helping to augment the volume.
And just consider the pipework. The ventilator machine sits by one patient and the multiple tubes run through all the other workspaces before getting to the patient at the far end. No, thank you.
In reply to #2
My friend has a daughter that's a nurse and apparently it is not unusual to split a respirator.
In the military it has been demonstrated 4 people can be helped using one machine with splitters
i find it difficult to understand how you or anyone would scoff at that idea in a national emergency.
Obviously as a general practice of course not but to save as many lives as possible it would be irresponsible not to if not enough machines are available.
In reply to #3
I am obliged for the information. Either the opinion of a nurse is worth more than that of a specialist internist or pockets of the US set much lower standards than anywhere in the UK.
There is literature on the subject, obtained from lung simulators and paralysed sheep
https://pubmed.ncbi.
https://pubmed.ncbi.
but a lung simulator or 12 hours of paralysed sheep in no way adequately represents a patient over the time course of an ICU stay.
Still, if you want to be one of those patients, you make my day.
In reply to #2
No system in the world is full-proof... At least this much we can learn from the outbreak. Let's take a pause and appreciate the efforts people all over the world are taking!!
No offense to anyone!!