BackgroundTeaching mechanical ventilation at the bedside with real patients is difficult with many logistic limitations. Mechanical ventilators virtual simulators (MVVS) may have the potential to facilitate mechanical ventilation (MV) training by allowing Web-based virtual simulation.ObjectiveWe aimed to identify and describe the current available MVVS, to compare the usability of their interfaces as a teaching tool and to review the literature on validation studies.MethodsWe performed a comparative evaluation of the MVVS, based on a literature/Web review followed by usability tests according to heuristic principles evaluation of their interfaces as performed by professional experts on MV.ResultsEight MVVS were identified. They showed marked heterogeneity, mainly regarding virtual patient's anthropomorphic parameters, pulmonary gas exchange, respiratory mechanics and muscle effort configurations, ventilator terminology, basic ventilatory modes, settings alarms, monitoring parameters, and design. The Hamilton G5 and the Xlung covered a broader number of parameters, tools, and have easier Web-based access. Except for the Xlung, none of the simulators displayed monitoring of arterial blood gases and alternatives to load and save the simulation. The Xlung obtained the greater scores on heuristic principles assessments and the greater score of easiness of use, being the preferred MVVS for teaching purposes. No strong scientific evidence on the use and validation of the current MVVS was found.ConclusionsThere are only a few MVVS currently available. Among them, the Xlung showed a better usability interface. Validation tests and development of new or improvement of the current MVVS are needed.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of using a new helmet interface for CPAP, designated ELMO, to treat COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) outside the ICU. Methods: This was a proof-of-concept study involving patients with moderate to severe AHRF secondary to COVID-19 admitted to the general ward of a public hospital. The intervention consisted of applying CPAP via the ELMO interface integrated with oxygen and compressed air flow meters (30 L/min each) and a PEEP valve (CPAP levels = 8-10 cmH2O), forming the ELMOcpap system. The patients were monitored for cardiorespiratory parameters, adverse events, and comfort. Results: Ten patients completed the study protocol. The ELMOcpap system was well tolerated, with no relevant adverse effects. Its use was feasible outside the ICU for a prolonged amount of time and was shown to be successful in 60% of the patients. A CPAP of 10 cmH2O with a total gas flow of 56-60 L/min improved oxygenation after 30-to 60-min ELMOcpap sessions, allowing a significant decrease in estimated FIO2 (p = 0.014) and an increase in estimated PaO2/FIO2 ratio (p = 0.008) within the first hour without CO2 rebreathing. Conclusions: The use of ELMOcpap has proven to be feasible and effective in delivering high-flow CPAP to patients with COVID-19-related AHRF outside the ICU. There were no major adverse effects, and ELMO was considered comfortable. ELMOcpap sessions significantly improved oxygenation, reducing FIO2 without CO2 rebreathing. The overall success rate was 60% in this pilot study, and further clinical trials should be carried out in the future. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04470258 [http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/])

No abstract

No abstract