Monday, June 19, 2017

1937-80: The evolution of mechanical ventilation

Inventor Holger Hess
(from Ambu.com)ega
Note: Here is my attempt to piece the history of mechanical ventilation together. If you have access to information or pictures to help tell this history please contact me. This is all done pro bono. As you can see there are no adds on this blog.

Non-invasive negative pressure ventilators (iron lungs) were a godsend in intensive care units during the first half of the 20th century. Yet their day in the sun was about to end, mainly due to two medical developments.
  1. The realization that iron lungs made it very challenging to clear secretions from airways. The patient's bed had to be pulled from the tank by one person, another person had to provide manual artificial respiration to the patient, a third had to rotate the patient, while another wiped away secretions. Considering there were sometimes copious secretions, caregivers sometimes had trouble keeping up. Since excessive secretions obstructed airways, caregivers yearned for a better system. 
  2. Improved anesthetics made it possible to perform complicated operating procedures, particularly upper abdominal surgeries. This made it necessary to develop an apparatus that would provide artificial respiration without covering the patient.  
These two developments lead to a paradigm shift away from noninvasive ventilation and toward invasive ventilation. They also lead to a shift away from negative pressure ventilation and towards positive pressure ventilation. These transitions were made possible due to the following innovations.

1923: Waters to and fro bag and canister:  This is not a history of anesthesia, although at times our history intertwines with theirs. Roger Waters devised a system that includes a canister filled with sodalime. The canister is placed between a rubber mask and a rebreather bag.  A gas flow (possibly oxygen with anesthesia) entered the system between the canister and the mask. Inspiration and expiration then went through the canister (to and fro). The soda lime would collect CO2 and create moist heat. The bag would collect exhaled gas flow. During inhalation the patient would get humidified gas. (28, page 433) (29, page 49)

This created a closed circuit system whereby the anesthesia gas used would not leak into the atmosphere. This was important because surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses and other operating room attendants did not want to inhale the gas, but also because some anesthetics were flammable. So it made sense to make sure the gas was delivered to the patient in a closed loop system. This system was also nice because it was cheap, sterile, and easy to operate. (28, page 433) (29, page 49)

The anesthetic Waters created this system to deliver was Cyclopropane, a gas that is explosive when it comes into contact with oxygen. Other anesthetics are also flammable, so the system allowed them to be contained. (30, page 147)

I just mention this device here because it is used in 1952 as part of a study that is pertinent to our own history.

1930s: First use of Positive End Expiratory Pressure (PEEP). Applying a constant pressure during expiration was first used during open chest surgeries to prevent lung collapse. A circle system anesthesia apparatus was used, where the exhalation outlet was connected with rubber tubing to a glass tube. The tube was inserted into a glass of water. The deeper the tube was inserted the higher the PEEP. This could usually generate 3-5 cwp of PEEP.  (24, page 91)

1937:  Suction pump invented:  Iron lungs were nice in that they gave caregivers the ability to keep children infected with paralytic poliomyelitis alive. Yet caregivers could not prevent some of these kids from drowning in the copious secretions they produced, secretions that obstructed their airways. This challenge was met in 1935 by Dr.  Hess, who said he had "a dream of developing products to save lives." (17) (18)

In 1937 he formed Testa Laboratories.  He invented a suction pump so secretions could easily be cleared (or sucked) from the patient's airway.  The pump was connected to rubber tubing. The distal end of the tubing was connected to a catheter that was inserted into the patient's airway. The pump acted like a vacuum and sucked secretions from the airway.  (17) (18)

One end of a rubber tube was attached to the pump, and the opposite end was inserted into the patient's airway.  When the pump was turned on a negative pressure was created, and any loose secretions in the patient's oral cavity would be sucked up.  This was a significant improvement over manually clearing the airway or feeling helpless as a patient suffocated on his own phlegm. (17) (18)

1945?: Bennett Clinical Research Model X2 Respirator (Bennett Valve):  During WWII, Dr. V. Ray Bennett worked with Dr. Cournand and Dr. Motley to invent the BRx2 Resuscitator for the United States Aeromedical Laboratory. (25, page 1)

According to The Journal of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, "This device featured the Bennett clinical research model (Ben X-2, or the Bennet Valve) valve and was used for administration of intermittent pressurized oxygen inhalation during high-altitude flights in unpressurized aircraft."  (24, page 90)

The system was connected to rubber corrugated tubing and a comfortable mask created by Bennett for other breathing units he invented. It was meant to control breathing, or assist breathing, for pilots at high altitudes. Yet as the war ended soon after it was invented, it was never used by the military.  (25, page 1) (26, AARC Virtual Museum).

A picture and write up on the device used here can be viewed at the AARC Virtual Museum. (http://museum.aarc.org/gallery/ippb/)

The device was then used medically to supply positive pressure ventilation, with or without PEEP, to patients in respiratory failure. (25, page 1) (26, AARC Virtual Museum).

John Dillon, of Los Angeles County Hospital, writing for the Anesthesia History Association Newsletter in July of 1990, explained how Bennett came to his office in the autumn of 1976 with his "gadget." Dr. Dillon said:
I took it into an operating room, along with Ray (Bennett), where a patient was under general anesthesia, and we slipped it into the circuit as an assistor; it worked very nicely. The depth of ventilation was readily controllable. Our outstanding characteristic, which was important at that time, was that it was not controlled by electricity and hence not a danger with ethyl ether. (26, page 1)
They then decided to try out the device on patients in the "infectious disease" section of the hospital where there was several poliomyelitis patients in Drinker Collin's Respirators, or iron lungs. The received the permission from a patient who was paralyzed due to the disease to try out the device. Dillon said:
We told him that we were going to put a mask on his face, and that it was connected to a device that would breathe for him while he was in the lung, and for him when the lung was opened. I assured him that we would not let him become distressed and that, if he were uncomfortable, he should blink his eyes rapidly, which was about all he could do, and we would put him back in the lung immediately."  (25, page 1,9)
We put a mask on and connected the "Valve" to a cylinder of compressed air. The unit synchronized with the lung. We then had the lung shut off and cracked open. The unit now provided "Controlled Respiration" to the patient at the rate and depth which had been set by the lung. The patient showed no sign of distress. His chest moved freely. As soon as it was evident that respiration was adequate, a couple of nurses, or attendants, gave the patient a sponge bath and some passive exercise on his limbs." (25, page 9)
We were all impressed by the action of the "Bennett Valve" as a ventilator. The patient was kept out of the lung for almost a half hour, and when he was returned to the lung and could talk, told us that he had been perfectly comfortable." (25, page 9)
The Bennett Valve, later known as the Puritan Bennett Valve, was therefore the first such device to supply controlled respiration with positive pressure on both a patient under anesthesia and paralyzed due to poliomyelitis.

1946: First Positive Pressure Inhalation Device:  Dr. Forrest Bird was an experienced pilot by the time WWII started. A week after the bombing of Pearl Harbor he signed up for the Army Air Corp. He was responsible for transporting many of the planes used in the war from factories to aircraft carriers, and was in an ideal position to study aerodynamics. (21)

He studied high altitude breathing problems that prevented pilots at this time from flying higher than 28,000 feet. He obtained a German regulator and made adjustments to it that allowed pilots to receive intermittent positive pressure breaths, allowing them to travel as high as 37,000 feet by the end of the war. This was important because it allowed American pilots to fly higher than enemy planes, giving them an advantage over enemy pilots.  (21)

The device he invented was effectively the first prototype of an intermittent positive pressure breathing machine, and would prove "invaluable" when he later worked on devising respirators for medical purposes. (21) (23)

1948:  Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP):  The first studies using crude CPAP devices were done during the 1930s. Alvin Barach performed the first modern studies on CPAP. This is a continuous flow of pressure applied to the airway by a mask. During WWII Alvin Barach supervised experiments whereby CPAP was used on a variety of pilots who traveled to high altitudes.

After the war he studied the use of CPAP on a variety of patients, although his work was relatively ignored until the 1980s when studies would confirm CPAP was was useful in treating patients with sleep apnea or lung diseases. CPAP was studied during the 1980s as a means of preventing patients from needing intubation.  (v2)

1948: Bennett Flow-Sensing Pressure Breathing Unit TV-2P: V. Ray Bennett's valve (The Bennett Valve) was featured in the Bennett TV-2P Respirator.   It was flow sensing, and time cycled, meaning a breath ended after a set time was met. It could provide controlled mechanical breaths to treat patients in respiratory failure. (24, page 90) (7, page 1318)

Patient's could also control the rate, making it also an ideal device for delivering intermittent positive pressure breathing. A nebulizer could be added to the circuit for the delivery of bronchodilators during IPPB therapy. It was run by electricity, batter, hand pump, or air. (22, page 94)

1948:  First Study Using IPPB:  Dr. Albert Bower noted a near epidemic number of cases of respiratory failure among bulbar poliomyelitis patients using Drinker Collin's Respirators at Los Angeles County Hospital. Several TV-2P's were used to provide assisted ventilation to several of these patients with noted respiratory failure. However, they proved less than ideal for long term IPPB.

Dr. Bower worked with Biomedical engineer V. Ray Bennett, who used his attachments (BR X2 valves) to make the Drinker-Collin's Respirators...
...capable of supplying "intratracheal" intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV), supplementary to its NPV (negative pressure ventilation). Together with their teams, Bower and Bennett used this attachment for 73 of 1949's 130 "respirator cases", to establish the first-ever large-scale long-term success of IPPV for respiratory failure in acute polio. (22, page 91)
The device was powered by the motor of the negative pressure ventilator. Positive pressure could be supplied to these patients by a mask that covered both the mouth and nose, or a tracheotomy adapter created by Bower. "The special exhalation was installed adjacent to the mask or tracheotomy connector." A bellows adapter was also added to the system. A humidifier could also be added. Likewise, supplemental oxygen or helium could also be added to the system.  (22, page 94-95)

Now, these negative pressure ventilators were still negative pressure ventilators, although positive pressure breaths could be applied to patients when needed. While the study did not report how often ventilation was augmented by IPPB, "The authors do describe IPPV as providing more effective AV, so presumably, they would favour it."

A year later, Bower and Bennett "demonstrated the superiority of (supplemental) IPPV over (negative pressure ventilation) alone, achieving a survival rate of 83.7 (108/129)-- compared with the 21.1% survival rate in 1946 among the 38 patients ventilated that year. (22, page 91)

This study was the first that used positive pressure ventilation, and the first to study the long term effects of intermittent positive pressure breathing. The study showed that use of IPPV lowered the incidence of mortality among those inflicted with paralytic bulbar poliomyelitis. It was essential to the transition from negative pressure ventilators to positive pressure ventilators. According to Critical Care Resuscitation, "Bower and Bennett deserve greater recognition of their pioneering merit than they currently receive in the written history of intensive care medicine."   (22, page 91, 99)

The lack of success of the TV-2P for long term ventilation and the success of this study highlighted the need for a more effective IPPB machine for general patient care. (22, page 94)

The Bennett Valve was also featured in the Bennett BA-2 Anesthesia Ventilator. It too was used by Los Angeles County Hospital during the 1948 polio epidemic.  (7, page 1318)

1950s-1970s:  Rubber masks:  Positive pressure breaths were often provided by using a rubber mask over the patient's mouth and nose. One of the major complications of the rubber masks used at this time was that they were opaque and concealed aspiration or foaming pulmonary edema, and this was noted as a major disadvantage of such masks.

Another disadvantage was prolonged use caused facial skin breakdown. And yet another disadvantage was that air would often leak around the masks. Masks also required persons to hold them onto the face, and this could get very tiresome for both the patient and the caregiver.

 When used on polio patients, nursing assistants or respiratory therapists would often work in two hour shifts. The disadvantages of these masks could be compensated for by tracheotomies and inserting a catheter, and later by intubation (see below).  (v3)

Mark 4 Resuscitator
Introduced by Dr. Forrest Bird
in 1958? as an anesthesia ventilator.

1952: The Bird Mark I:  Pressure ventilation was found useful during operations to prevent respiratory failure, although they posed two pretty significant problems.
  • There was no way to monitor accurate pressures and tidal volumes delivered to patients, and so uncuffed endotracheal tubes were needed to prevent barotrauma from excessive pressures and tidal volumes. This left airways unprotected and subject to aspiration of stomach contents.
  • Some early anesthesia ventilators were powered by electricity. This posed a problem because sparks from them could trigger an explosion due to flammable gases present in operating rooms at the time.   (24, page 91)
This created a need for a pneumatic respirator, or one that was powered by air instead of electricity. 

Roger Manley was an anesthesiologist from Westminster, London. He worked with Dr. Forrest Bird, who incorporated the technology he
invented in 1946 into an anesthesia ventilator. The first Bird Medical Universal Respirator prototype was introduced in 1950, and a second was introduced in 1951.

All that was needed to operate it was a 50 PSI source. By this time most operating rooms had piped in oxygen, so this should not have been a problem. It was pressure triggered and cycled, meaning breaths began when the patient generated a negative pressure, and ended when a preset pressure was met.

It was marketed in 1952 as the Manley Respiratory, although it was later refined and re-branded as the Mark II. It was used by anesthesiologists for the next 40 years.

The machine provided some clear advantages to older ventilators. Patients were given anesthesia, and once the paralyzing effect occurred, patients were intubated. Tubing from the machine was connected to an endotracheal tube. The tube made it easy to keep airways patent and free from secretions. The ventilator provided a hands free method of providing artificial respiration until the anesthetic was withdrawn and patients were spontaneously breathing.

Previous anesthesia ventilators only provided the preset rate and inspiratory time, what was referred to as "controlled ventilation." This meant that the patient could not trigger a breath. This worked fine in operating rooms where patients were paralyzed and sedated due to anesthesia. But it was not acceptable for the general population, particularly patients who were awake and alert who could fight the machine, thereby creating what is referred to as patient-ventilator asynchrony.

So, while initially made as an anesthesia ventilator, the Mark 1 was also found to be a useful ventilator by physicians in emergency rooms and critical care units. This was because it sensed a patient's inspiratory effort, and then provided a positive pressure breath to "assist" ventilation. This became known as "assisted ventilation."

And, of course, when used outside operating rooms, they were operated by inhalation therapists. This created a new market for pneumatic positive pressure ventilators, a market that Bird would tap into with a later model.

Bennett PR II
(AARC.org gallary of ICU Ventilators.)
Check out this link for pictures
of most ventilators on this page.
One of the pictures shows
external PEEP with the MA1. 
1952:  Bennett Pressure Breathing Unit:  After the BR X2 Respirator attachment was successfully studied in 1948, Dr. V. Ray Bennett incorporated into the PR I and later the PR II.  Like the Mark I and Mark II, it was a pressure cycled ventilator. It had a nebulizer cup for the nebulizatiion of Isuprel and Alevaire. It could be used as a ventilator or for IPPB treatments.

Pneumatic positive pressure machines were increasingly used as ventilators instead of iron lungs when suctioning of the airway was required. These units were also increasingly used for IPPB therapy, and often referred to as IPPB machines.

Iron Lungs and IPPB machines were used as ventilators until the 1960s when volume ventilators (such as the Emerson and MAI ventilators below) were proven to be safer and more effective as ventilators. However, IPPB units remained a viable ventilator option when called upon.

Bennett later refined this machine and re-branded it as the Bennett Bennett PR 2 in 1963. Both of these machines (the BR1 and BR2) ) were still mentioned in respiratory therapy texts through the 1990s.

1952-1953: Second Study of Long Term IPPB:  Dr. Bjorn Aage, an anesthesiologist, Ibsen performed a large scale study using intermittent positive pressure ventilation in Copenhagen, Denmark. During the polio epidemic of 1952-1953, Ibsen was called to an emergency meeting, where he recommended providing ventilation manually using a bag when polio patients. Despite criticism, Ibsen's idea went on to become the largest study up to that time using Intermittent positive pressure breaths. (24, page 97) (27, page 398)

Isben was met with criticism because the hospital had access to an Emerson Tank (iron lung) and six cuirass respirators. And here came along an anesthesiologist who proposed "ventilating patients with breathing failure, somehow without respirators." (27, page 399)

Waters to and fro system (anesthesia.med)
His first patient was a "moribund 12 year old, Vivi Ebert (her name has been in the public domain). Per Ibsen's request, she had a tracheotomy, and then she was ventilated with manual positive pressure ventilation. The device used was a "Waters to and fro bag and (soda lime packed) canister." This was an early anesthesia device for providing positive pressure ventilation to patients while anesthesia was administered. (27, page 399)

It should be noted that "The treatment succeeded, and she lived until 1971." This success garnished the excitement of all involved, and this lead to a two year study of other similar patients with poliomyelitis, and the hospital had plenty of trainees, students, nurses, and anesthesiologists to perform the duties. About 277 patients were provided IPPV with the device, and this was about four times as many patients that were trialed with IPPV in Los Angeles a in 1948. (24, page 97)(37, page 399)

This study showed that IPPV could prove useful when used on a large scale for poliomyelitis patients in respiratory failure.

For the record here, Ibsen is often referred to as the father of intensive care for his work in this study, and for his work in establishing the first intensive care unit in the world in 1953 at Copenhagen. (27, page 398)

1953:  Bag-valve mask (self inflating resuscitator) invented. Surgeons are unable to perform surgeries in the upper abdominal region mainly due to the inability to provide artificial resuscitation. They were also faced with the daunting challenge of performing artificial resuscitation for kids infected with paralytic poliomyelitis when they were outside their iron lungs. Surely there were a few mechanical or pneumatic devices, although these were all new and relatively primitive at this time. Plus they wouldn't have been available at many hospitals. To tackle these challenges, Holger Hess joined forces with anesthesiologist Henning Ruben.

AMBU resuscitator
Also shows opaque rubber mask.
 (from AMBU.com)
This Hess invented the bag valve mask (BVM), or what is also known as the first self inflating resuscitator. Now it is most commonly referred to as an AMBU-bag. There has often been speculation as to what the  acronym A-M-B-U stands for, although no one knows for sure. There are a couple accepted ones, such as ambulatory manual breathing unit, or air mask breathing unit. Either way, the device gave anesthesiologists the ability to give paralytics during complicated surgeries, allowing surgeons to save lives.

The device was a lightweight black rubber bag. On one end was rubber tubing that connected to an air or oxygen tank (preferably oxygen). The other end of the bag was connected to a rubber mask that was placed over the patient's face. Once the flow was turned on, the caregiver would squeeze the bag to provide a breath. Once the caregiver released the bag, it self inflated. This was an evolutionary breakthrough that quickly gained in popularity throughout the hospital.

Initially mailed in wooden boxes out of a small factory in Copenhagen, the company soon had to move to larger facilities. It even changed its name to AMBU.  While initially used only by anesthesiologists, when other physicians learned of the product they wanted one. Soon one was available in nearly every corner of every hospital, particularly in operating rooms, emergency rooms, and critical care units.

Anesthesiologists now had the means of providing  providing artificial resuscitation during operations. Physician, anesthesiologists, nurses aides, orderlies and inhalation therapists would take turns providing artificial respiration to kids infected with polio until an iron lung was available.
A picture of the Bird Mark 7,
sometimes referred to
simply as "The Bird."
(From independenceplus.com)

1958:  Bird Mark 7 Universal Respirator:
Dr. Bird continued working on positive pressure technology, and in 1955 came up with a prototype of the Bird Mark 7.

Dr. Bird showcased it at various teaching hospitals, allowing it to be used in the most critically ill patients who were suffering from respiratory failure where other accepted therapies had failed to work. The Bird Mark 7 Respirator was quickly accepted by the medical community, and in 1958 it was introduced to the market.

This respirator was ideal for inhalation therapists, as it was portable, durable, and easy to operate. It was connected to a 50 PSI source and was operated by a flow of air. It could be used to provide controlled positive pressure breaths long term by connecting it to an endotracheal or tracheotomy tube. It was one of the first respirators to provide continuous controlled mechanical breaths for patients who were unable to spontaneously breathe. (20, pages 66-67).

Dr. Forrest Bird demonstrating
the Bird prototype introduced in 1950,
and the Bird Mark 7 introduced in 1958.
Like the Mark I and Bennett respirators, it was pressure cycled. Like the other pressure breathing machines. Likewise, tidal volumes were determined by resistance, meaning they were variable from breath to breath, patient to patient. When set to "air-mix" the fraction of inspired oxygen was 40%, although could also get as high as 80%. (20, page 67)

It was also easy to repair and maintain, and for this reason, Dr. Bird once quipped that it was the Model T of respirators.

It was initially intended to be used as a ventilator. Yet two problems were observed:
  1. No manometers or devices to indicate how much of a tidal volume was being delivered. 
  2. No alarms to indicate when too much pressure was being given, or if the patient became disconnected (20, page 67)
These disadvantages required patients ventilated with these machines to be located close to nurses stations, where they could be frequently monitored by nurses, doctors, and inhalation therapists. The machines made a distinct sound during inhalations, so it would be easy to hear if they were working.

The conveniences offered by these machines made them ideal for IPPB therapy. So, while IPPB therapy was first described in 1947, and while there were other pressure machines that did the same thing, the Bird Mark 7 made it famous. It would become the most commonly used IPPB machine, and was generally responsible for the IPPB Revolution that followed.

They were very commonly found in hospitals during the 1960s and 1970s, although some hung around until the 2000s.  Some of these machines can still be found in respiratory therapy equipment storage rooms collecting dust, although most have been discarded or sent to Africa.

A Bird Mark 7 service manual can be viewed here.

John "Jack" Haven Emerson
(polioplace.org)
1964:  Emerson Volume Ventilator The Bennett and Bird Respirators were the two main ventilators used in the first decade after the decline of negative pressure ventilators. Yet their weaknesses soon became apparent. This particularly became evident during the 1960s as critical care units were on the rise. So this made apparent the need for volume ventilators, the first of which to enter the scene was created by the already famous Dr. John Emerson.

According to a 1998 article by Richard Branson in Respiratory Care, "Jack Emerson: Notes on his life and contributions to respiratory care," John Emerson was the second person to come up with a volume ventilator. Branson described this ventilator.
"This simple devise resembled a green washing machine and used a piston to deliver precise volumes. Oxygen was added into a ‘trombone-shaped’ accumulator connected to the intake of the piston for delivery of elevated FIO2. The tidal volume was changed by a crank on the front of the machine, which controlled the stroke of the piston. Respiratory rate and inspiratory-to-expiratory-time ratio (I:E) were adjustable. The humidifier was a modified pressure cooker and was known as the Emerson Hot Pot. A belt, connected to a DC motor and pulley wheel, served to move the piston. In case of failure of the existing belt, a spare was hung inside each cabinet. The belts were similar to those used to circulate air in forced air gas furnaces in homes. On numerous occasions I have heard the story of the belt becoming loose or breaking and the spare found to be missing. Under these circumstances, the resourceful respiratory therapist would run to the parking lot and obtain the belt from a Volkswagen Beetle (the old one) and place it in the Emerson to restore it to working order. I’ve never looked to see whether the two belt sizes are compatible because it’s such a good story. In any event, the Emerson Post op Volume Ventilator was reliable and would allow ventilation of patients when other devices failed. Emerson’s device was not the first of the piston ventilators (M¨orch and Engstrom preceded him), but it was the first device to allow independent control of I:E." (9, page 568)
This was the first volume ventilator.  Unlike the IPPB units that could be used with either an endotracheal tube, trach tube, mask or mouthpiece, volume ventilators required that the patient either be intubated or have a tracheotomy tube.

1967:  The Puritan Bennett MA1 Ventilator:  In 1940 Ray Bennet produced a gas delivery system that involved a "jewled pneumatic valve - the 'valve that breathes with the patient." It was this concept that allowed the Puritan Bennett company to create the the MA1. (a10) (b11)

It was a compact unit that could easily be carted to the patient's bedside. Knobs on the machine allowed the therapist to set in a desired rate, tidal volume, sigh depth, sigh rate, and maximum pressure.

The machine also added a feature from the IPPB machines called sensitivity. This allowed the therapist to control how hard or easy it was for patients to trigger breaths. When set high, such as 10cwp, patients would have to work very hard to start a breath. This was ideal for patients who were not breathing on their own. It would be a fright show as the patient started to wake up and breathe spontaneously. This resulted in patient anxiety and stress and patient-ventilator assynchrony.

When the sensitivity was set to 2-3 cwp the patient could easily trigger a breath. This was an ideal feature, making mechanical ventilation much more comfortable for patients. This feature combined "controlled ventilation" with "assist ventilation, and it became known as "assist-control mode." This made it so the patient would receive the dialed in rate, although could trigger spontaneous breaths in between machine breaths.

Once the patient was intubated, tubing from the machine could easily be hooked up to the ETT (it could also be hooked up to a trach tube). It gave caregivers much better control compared to negative pressure and positive pressure breathing units.

Most therapists who were familiar with these machines say they were very durable. Even after other ventilators were purchased and broke down, the MA1s continued to function. Even after the MA2s were introduced, most facilities preferred to stick with their reliable MA1. This tended to be the case until more reliable volume ventilators hit the market.

One problem with the MA1 is that it didn't come with much needed alarms. This was my problem in my brief experience with the ventilator. Most alarms were external alarms, and were complicated to work, or at least I thought so. External alarms included high rate, low rate, high pressure, and low pressure.

Another knock on the MA1 was that it had no way showing rate and tidal volume. To assure that these were adequate, an external manometer was needed.

Still, even with these annoying alarms, the machine was relatively easy to operate. If you needed to make a change all you did was turn a knob.

When I was an RT student in 1995 there was an old MA1 in the classroom. We were vaguely educated on this machine, mainly because most hospitals that still had one were phasing them out. When I was first hired at Memorial Medical Center we had one that sat in the storage room. I only had to use it one time before it was taken out of circulation sometime around the year 2000.

Another neat thing about these machines is that they were so durable, and lasted so long, that nearly every time a ventilator was featured on TV, or in a movie, it was an MA1. This continued to be the case for years after they weren't even in circulation.

In fact, when I took my registry test back in 1997, nearly all the ventilator questions were regarding the MA1. So, in preparing for the test, we had to become pseudo MA1 experts.  But that was in an era before computers, back when it wasn't easy to update a test with the click of a keystroke.

1967: Positive End Expiratory Pressure (PEEP): This feature was added to ventilators as a feature in order to keep airways open, or to prevent airways from collapsing at end expiration. It was initially used to improve oxygenation in patients suffering from Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). This was initially added as an external feature, although newer ventilators came with PEEP capabilities. (31, page 9)

1971: Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation:

Servo 900C set up and ready to go.
1971:  Servo 900 Ventilator:  It was small, slightly larger than two shoe boxes, and all the knobs were on the front. It became known as a minute ventilation ventilator because the respiratory therapist would set the minute ventilation and the tidal volume and respiratory rate would be secondary. In this way, in volume control mode, the tidal volume could be set.

This machine had a sensor to make sure the tidal volume was adjusted with changes in patient compliance so the patient was guaranteed to get the set tidal volume. This was the first ventilator to have this function.

In order to set tidal volume, though, you had to do a little math. I know because when I did my clinical rotation in 1996 at Blodgett Hospital, in Grand Rapids Michigan, they still used this ventilator on a regular basis. It was also commonly used on cardiac patients at Mott's Children's Hospital at the University of Michigan when I did a rotation.

Many students were afraid to use it, and so was I at first. Yet once you were used to it, it was a very nice ventilator. However, students were thankful when it was ultimately replaced by the Servo 300 Ventilator.

It was the first ventilator to have all the alarms you needed right on the machine, and it was also the first ventilator to allow for the addition of a device so you could see pressure and flow curves. This was nice because you could see what you were doing and make changes based on the needs of the patient. (d12)

It was also the first ventilator to provide both volume control and intermittent positive ventilation (IMV), which was later improved to synchronized intermittent positive ventilation. These new modes improved the physician's ability to wean patients from the ventilator. (e13)

There were some features added to the servo 900 series that most respiratory therapists would understand, but probably not the lay person.  The first addition came in 1978, and this was the ability to measure exhaled carbon dioxide (CO2).  This was nice because, prior to this, the only way to determine CO2 was by drawing an arterial blood gas (ABG), which is an invasive blood draw.

This was nice because it allowed clinicians the ability to change settings based on a noninvasive number, as opposed to having to do an invasive blood draw. It meant that a change could be made right now, as opposed to waiging up to 30 minutes for the results of the ABG. (e14)

A couple other features may be a bit more complicated to explain. Positive End Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) is essentially the same thing as CPAP, and is a continuous flow during expiration. It works to keep airways patent to ensure adequate oxygenation.

Prior to 1981 various devices were used to provide PEEP. One was by placing the expiratory circuit in a bottle of water. Today this system is still used in neonatal units and is referred to as bubble CPAP. Non-electronic PEEP was fine, although there was not way to know how much you were giving, and it sometimes applied external resistance to breathing. These problems were solved in 1981 as PEEP was introduced to the Servo 900 series.  Now all you had to do was dial it in.

Most initial modes of ventilating patients gave mandatory breaths to patients. This essentially means that the caregiver dialed in a rate and tidal volume, and this is what was given to the patient. It is called control ventilation, meaning that the ventilator controls everything. The patient can try to take in a breath, but nothing will come.

This was fine when patients were sedated and paralyzed, but once they started to wake up, you can imagine this would be quite uncomfortable. This often resulted in patient-ventilator asynchrony, where the machine would try to force a breath into the patient when the patient wasn't ready for it, and the patient would want to take a breath and no breath would come.

A new mode called Pressure Support solved this dilemma. PS means that the patient's spontaneous inspirations were supported with a small amount of pressure. This would assure that the breath was adequate, and was important for those patients who were too week, or too sick, to take in an adequate tidal volume. It was also a useful tool as far as weaning patients off the ventilator.

Pressure Control mode was also later added. This essentially means that the patient is guaranteed a certain pressure, while the tidal volume may vary with each breath. There are certain disease conditions that benefit from this mode. Neonates who use uncuffed ETTs also benefit from pressure control mode.  (e15)

1975: Synchronized Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation:

1977: Mandatory Minute Volume Ventilation:



References:
  1. Szmuk, et al, "A brief history of tracheostomy and tracheal intubation, from the Bronze Age to the Space Age," Intensive Care Medicine, 2008, 34, pages 222-228, reference to page 227
  2. Wyka, Kenneth A., Paul J. Mathews, William F. Clark, ed., "Fundamentals of Respiratory Care," 2002, . page 630, Section IV, Essential Therapeutics
  3. Wyka, ibid
  4. Sills, J.R.,  "Modifying IPPB Therapy," Respiratory Care Certification Guide1994, second edition, St. Lois, Mosby.
  5. Stephen, Phyllis Jean, "Nebulization Under Intermittent Positive Pressure," The American Journal of Nursing," 1957, Sept., vol. 57, No. 9, pages 1158-1160
  6. Stephen, ibid
  7. Hess, Dean R., et al, "Respiratory Care:  Principles and Practice," 2012, "Intermittent Positive Pressure Breathing," chapter 18, page 370
  8. Wyka, op cit
  9. Branson, Richard,  Branson, Richard D, "Jack Emerson:  Notes on his life and contributions to Respiratory Care," Respiratory Care, July 1998, vol. 43, no. 7, pages 567-71
  10. "Company History," Puritan Bennett Corporation,  http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/PuritanBennett-Corporation-Company-History.html, accessed February 27, 2012
  11. "About us:  Respiratory Products for nearly a century," PuritanBennet.com,  http://www.puritanbennett.com/about/index.aspx, accessed February 27, 2012
  12. "About us:  History of Ventilation," maquet.com,  http://www.maquet.com/sectionPage.aspx?m1=112599762812&m2=112599885558&m3=112600545105&m4=112806653448&wsectionID=112806653448&languageID=4, accessed February 27, 2012
  13. "The Servo Story:  Thirty Years of Thechnological Innovation Evolving with Clinical Development of Ventilatory Treatment Strategies," www.maquet.com,  http://www.maquet.com/content/Documents/Site_Specific/MAQUETcom/GENERAL_The_Servo_Story.pdf, accessed February 27, 2012
  14. "The Servo Story...," ibid
  15. "The Servo Story...," ibid
  16. Vogel, Virgil J., "American Indian Medicine," 1970, London, Oklahoma University Press
  17. "AMBU History," Ambu.com, http://www.ambu.com/corp/about_ambu/our_company/history.aspx, accessed 6/29/13
  18. "AMBU History," a slide show presentation,  http://www.ambu.com/Files/Filer/Welcome%20to%20Ambu/9498_Ambu_history_PDF_1.pdf, accessed 7/5/13
  19. Garrison, "An introduction to the history of medicine," 1921, 3rd edition, Philadelphia and London, W.B. Saunders Company
  20. Glover, Dennis, "History of Respiratory Therapy," 
  21. McFadden, Robert, "Dr. Forrest Bird, Inventor of Mechanical Respirators and Ventilators, Dies at 94," New York Times, August 3, , 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/us/dr-forrest-bird-inventor-of-medical-respirators-and-ventilators-dies-at-94.html?_r=0; accessed April 3, 2016
  22. Trubuhovich, RV, "On the very first, successful, long-term, large-scale use of IPPV. Albert Bower and V Ray Bennett: Los Angeles, 1948-1949," Critical Care Resuscitation, 2007, March 9, (1), pages 91-100, https://www.cicm.org.au/CICM_Media/CICMSite/CICM-Website/Resources/Publications/CCR%20Journal/Previous%20Editions/March%202007/17_2007_Mar_History-of-Medicine.pdf, accessed 4/10/16
  23. Obituary, Dr. Forrest Bird, file:///home/chronos/u-48b0af7d8a6e832f841243beb1bf56db699d3e12/Downloads/forrest_bird_obituary.pdf, accessed 4/
  24. Somerson, Steven J., Michael R. Sicilia, "Historical perspectives on the developmentand use of mechanical ventilation," The Journal of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, February, 1992, Vol. 60, no. 1, pages 83-94, https://www.aana.com/newsandjournal/Documents/historical_perspectives_0292_p083.pdf, accessed April 10, 2016
  25. Dillon, John Bartley, "The Beginning of Mechanical Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation," Anesthesia History Association Newsletter, July, 1990, Vol. 8, No. 3, pages 1,9, http://ahahq.org/Bulletin/AHA_GB_1990-07.pdf, accessed 4/11/16
  26. AARC Virtual Museum, "What is IPPB?"http://museum.aarc.org/gallery/ippb/, accessed 4/11/16
  27. Obituaries: "Bjorn Ibsen: commemorating his life, 1915-2007," Critical Care and Resuscitatjion, December, 2007, Volume 9, No. 4, pages 398-403, https://www.cicm.org.au/CICM_Media/CICMSite/CICM-Website/Resources/Publications/CCR%20Journal/Previous%20Editions/December%202007/19_2007_Dec_Obituaries-Bj%C3%B8rn-Ibsen.pdf, accessed 4/11/16
  28. Agasti, TK, "Textbook of Anesthesia for Postgraduates," 2011, Jaypee Brothers, London, page 433
  29. Paul, Uran Kumar, "Essentials of Anesthesiology," 2006, 7th edition, Jaypee Brothers, New Delhi, page 49
  30. Vacanti, Charles, Scott Segal, Pankaj Sikka, Richard Urman, editors, "Essential Clinical Anesthesia," 2011, New York, Cambridge University Press, page 147
  31.  Kacmarek, Robert M, James K. Stoller, Albert J. Heuer, editors, "Egan's Fundamentals of Respiratory Care," 2017, St. Louis, Elsevier, inc.

Friday, June 16, 2017

1931: The Emerson Respirator

His father worked as Commissioner of Health in New York during the polio epidemic of 1916, and perhaps as a result of this inventor John Haven Emerson (1906-1997) had a recollection of suffering from the illness as a child.  So he had a vested interest in inventing a mechanical respirator that was more efficient and more comfortable than the Drinker and Shaw Respirator.  He ultimately refined the Drinker and Shaw Respirator and came up with his own product that became the Emerson Respirator.

Like the Dinker and Shaw Respirator, the patient would lie on a table that could be slid in and out of the tank.  The table was often referred to as a cookie tray.  The side of the tank, which was blue, had portal windows so nurses could have access to the patient whenever they needed.  Over the patient's head was a mirror they could see behind then. The bellows were stored under the tank, which was lightweight, and wheels were added to make the devices mobile. (1)

The machine could also produce a large range of tidal volumes by adjusting the pump settings, and it was relatively quiet (a noted improvement over the Drinker Respirator).  In the event of power failure there was a hand crank at the foot end of the device so the doctor or nurse (or later the inhalation therapist) could provide breaths manually. It was also simple to produce, which made it affordable.   It was said to be about half the cost of the Drinker Respirator.   Emerson's design still cost as much as a house, yet it was still somewhat reasonable, or about half the cost of other such respirators at the time. (see chart below) (2)

Emerson introduced his iron lung during a polio epidemic in 1931, and it soon became the most popular respirator in hospitals in Europe and the U.S.  Emerson's respirators continued to be the most used ventilator until  the 1950s and 60s when the Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin polio vaccine became available for kids around the world.  The vaccine was first introduced in 1954, and injected into millions of kids between 1956 and 1960 "with dramatic results." An oral vaccine was later introduced and administered to millions of kids between 1962 and 1964. (3)

There were various versions of the Emerson Lung, and the Drinker and Shaw Respirator, that were available in hospitals around the United States and Europe.  Richard Daggett, in his 2010 book "Not just polio: my life," explains that the machines made a whooshing sound as air entered and exited the patient's lungs. He explained that he was placed in a Drinker Collins Iron Lung in the early 1950s, and he described waking up in the machine: (4, page 30, 31)
There was a mirror over my head and, in the mirror, I could see a row of large black bellows across the room.  They were going up and down.  I didn't know much about respirators, but I figured one of them must be making me breathe.  I tried to figure which one it was by timing my breathing with the motion of each bellows.  None of them seemed to match my breathing pattern. It wasn't until later in the day, when my mirror was adjusted upward, that I realized that those bellows were all attached to the underside of other respirators.  I couldn't see mine because it was beneath me.... I was in a Drinker Collins Iron Lung."  (4, page 29)
Daggett explains that as a child it was difficult to grasp the seriousness of having bulbospinal polio and, ultimately, pneumonia.  He wrote: "I was very naive. I had no understanding of how serious my condition was.  Oh, I knew I was completely paralyzed, but the long-term impact did not sink in.  My greatest concern was that I might miss the first day of school." (4, page 33)

It must have been common for these patients to develop pneumonia, as their would have been constant secretions forming in the upper air passages that needed to be cleared, or they would be inhaled, thus causing respiratory infections such as pneumonia.  Daggett mentions the constant urge to blow his nose, which he often did "without even using a tissue." (4, page 31, 33)

Because their muscles of respiration would have been paralyzed, these patients would have lacked the ability to clear their own secretions. So, despite having the means of breathing for them, some of these patients still drowned in their own secretions. Others developed pneumonia, and this this further complicated treatment. So keeping airways clear of secretions was a constant concern for caregivers. This made it important to have easy access to these patients.

Yet bulky iron lungs made it hard to access patients. Their bed had to be slid out from inside the tank, and artificial breaths performed manually. One person had to turn the patient, while another cleared secretions.

This problem was remedied somewhat with the invention of a suction device in 1937.  Daggett said he had a tracheotomy that gave caregivers an easy means of clearing his airway. This may have been aided by an early suction device. (4, page 30)

Iron lungs were viewed as neat life saving devices. Yet they were also viewed as horrible way to spend the rest of your life. Thankfully, for most of those kids inflicted with polio, the paralyzation was only temporary, with most recovering after spending a week or  two inside a tank. Many, like Dagget, lived to tell their stories.

Iron lungs were replaced during the 1950s by positive pressure breathing machines. This was a necessary change because it made it easier to access patients. This also made it easier to breathe for patients during operations and in emergency situations. Still, during an era when many children were inflicted with a paralyzing disease, the iron lung was a godsend.

Here are some interesting facts about iron lungs from http://americanhistory.si.edu/ :
  1. The National Foundation of Infantile Paralysis began mass distribution of tank respirators in 1939
  2. In the 1930s, an iron lung cost about $1,500  -- the average price of a home
  3. 1n 1959 there were 1,200 people using tank respirators in the U.S., in 2004 there were 39

References
  1. "The Iron Lung and Other Equipment,"  http://americanhistory.si.edu/,  http://americanhistory.si.edu/polio/howpolio/ironlung.htm, accessed February 27, 2012
  2. Previtera, Joseph, "Negative Pressure Ventilation: Operating Procedure (Iron Lung)," Tufts Medical Center, Respirator Care Programs, http://160.109.101.132/respcare/npv.htm, and http://160.109.101.132/respcare/ironlung.htm, accessed February 27, 2012
  3. "Emerson Infant Respirator," Case Western Reserve University, Ditrick Medical History Center,  http://www.neonatology.org/pdf/EmersonInfantRespirator.pdf, accessed February, 27, 2012
  4. Daggett, Richard Lloyd, "Not just polio: my life story," 2010, Bloomington, IN, iUniverse
  5. Drinker, Charles, Charles F. McKhann, "The Use of a New Apparatus for the Prolonged Administration of Artificial Respiration: A Fatal Case of Poliomyelitis," Journal of the American Medical Association,  May 18, 1929, reprinted in same publication on March 21, 1986, volume 255, no. 11, pages 1473-1475 
  6. Drinker, Phillip A., Charles F. McKhann, "The iron lung: first practical means of respiratory support,"  Journal of the American Medical Association, 1986, March 21, vol. 255, no. 11,, pages 1476-1480

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

1929: The Drinker Respirator

A clipping from a newspaper article, probably sometime around 1928.
Photo form the University of Virginia Historical Collections. Photo
originally published in "The use of a new aparatus for the prolonged
administration of artificial respiration" by Phillip Drinker and Charles
F. McKhann. (1, Iron Lung)
The first effective ventilator that gave breaths without an operator was the Drinker Respirator by engineer Phillip Drinker (1894-1972).  The product was  introduced to the world in a 1929 article by Dr. Phillip Drinker and Dr. Charles F. McKhann. (1, Iron Lung)(4)

The report highlighted the fact that manual resuscitators (such as the lungmotor or pulmotor) forced too much air into the lungs too fast, and could only be used for so long due to worker fatigue. Plus, they wrote that "respiratory excursion obtainable by manual efforts is most disappointing. In our experience, it is almost impossible to produce and maintain adequate oxygen interchange by manual methods of artificial respiration alone, in cases requiring long term administration." (4, page 1658)

Their solution was the Drinker Respirator.  It was the first mass producible negative pressure ventilator, otherwise known as the iron lung, mechanical respirator, or tank respirator.

Image of the Drinker Iron Lung.  You can see the marine like port
holes on the sides of the tank that could be used to see the patient.
Small holes could be accessed for basic toughing. (5, page 232)
This respirator is often referred to as the Drinker and Shaw respirator because Phillip Drinker worked with his brother Cecil and Dr. Louis Shaw to create and test the device. The Consolidated Gas Company of New York came up with the idea and recruited Harvard Professor Cecil Drinker. He in turn recommended his brother, who was a chemical engineer. Dr. Shaw was a colleague of Phillip. (1, Iron Lung)

The final product was first introduced to physicians at Harvard in 1928. Actually, the original name for this respirator was the Drinker Tankrespirator, but the name iron lung is the name that ultimately stuck. No one knows for sure who came up with the term "iron lung." One article cited an "anonymous journalist."

While it was useful for many types of patients (morphine overdose, carbon monoxide poisoning, electric shock, near drowning, etc) it was originally made for those affected by coal gas poisoning.  (7, page 93) Yet it is is most remembered as being associated with the polio epidemics, used to breathe for the many children most severely stricken with the disease infantile poliomyelitis.

The machine consisted of a metal tank that completely enclosed the patient's body except for the head.  The patient would lie on his back on a bed.  The bed would then be slid into the tube or tank.  The neck would be sealed around rubber collars to provide a seal to prevent air from entering or escaping the tank.

Inside the tank was completely air tight.  Pumps, which were originally two vacuum cleaners with bellows, and a manometer used to operate the device, sat on a table next to the tank, and they were operated by electricity and a large bedside oxygen tank.  The rate could be set by adjusting dials on the gearbox.  While there was no means of measuring tidal volume, breaths could be provided at a constant depth and rate. There are reports that the machine was quite noisy, so one must imagine this only compounded the stress of patient.

A patient could live inside one of these tanks for days or weeks without harm.  The patient, since his head was outside the tank, could "adapt themselves quickly to their new method of breathing and learn to eat, drink and sleep without having the attendant stop the machine." (6, page 95)

To examine, treat, and bathe the patient the bed would have to be slid out of the tube.  If necessary, manual methods of ventilation could be used while these procedures were being performed.  (5, page 232)

Image of the Drinker Respirator.  You can see that the pumps
and manometer were on a separate table to the left.  To access the
patient, the bed was slid out as shown. While outside the tank
the patient could be kept alive with manual methods of respiraiton
if necessary. As you can see, maintaining the tanks and
caring for the patient was a cumbersome task.   (5, page 231)
For less invasive procedures, such as taking temperatures, blood pressures, auscultation, checking IV lines, and basic touching of the patient, there were "small holes (pipe taps) on the sides of the tank.  For the basic observation of the patient there were "marine like port holes' also on the sides of the tank.  (5, page 234)

Here you can see the rubber collar that secures
tightly around the patients neck so that the
head could rest outside the tank on the
adjustable support.  (5, page 233)
Over time the iron lung was improved in order to make the machines more accessible to patient care, and to make the machines easier to operate and move from one room to another.  For example, by the 1950s the pumps and bellows would set under the tank to make the unit more compact, and wheels were added to the legs.  Of course another reason this was probably done was to keep up with the competition.  

The Drinker Respirator was ideal because it allowed physicians an opportunity to keep their patients alive long enough to treat them, thus allowing their bodies a chance to recover.  While the machines were ideal for victims of all ages, they were most remembered as being used for the many children stricken with the most severe forms of infantile poliomyelitis, which causes respiratory paralysis. Without the ventilator these kids would often succumb to fatigue, respiratory failure, and ultimately death.

While the devices may have been cumbersome, uncomfortable and noisy:
"The response of these patients to the respirator was very gratifying," according to a 1931 article in the Western Journal of Medicine.  "Usually before their condition became alarming they were told that if they became too fatigued they could have the help of the respirator, and in several instances patients asked to be placed in the machines for a trial.  A few of the children were very apprehensive and had to be given opiates over a short period when first placed on the respirator.  None of these patients had any difficulty in adapting themselves to the rhythm of the machine."  (2, page 5)
Many children with poliomyelitis recovered after a week or two in the iron lung, and went on to live normal lives. .  

The Technical Exposition:  Opportunity to try the Dinker Respirator:  Warren E. Collins Inc. will exhibit the Dinker Respirator, for prolonged administration of artificial respiration in cases of infantile and diptheretic paralysis, gas and drug poisoning, electric shock, alcoholic, coma, etc.  Doctors are invited to make a personal trial of the Respirator to see how it feels. New improvements on the Roth-Barach oxygen tent and the Benedict-Roth Metabolism Apparatus will also be of interest, and demonstrations will be gladly given without obligation.  See these in Booth 110, near the main entrance.  (3, page 1617)

References:
  1. "Iron Lung: 1929 Dinker Respirator," University of Virginia Historical Collections at the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library,"  http://historical.hsl.virginia.edu/ironlung/pg4.cfm, accessed February 26, 2012
  2. Shaw, E.B.,  H. E. Thelander, and M. A. Limper, "Respiratory Failure in PolioMyelitus -- it's treatment and the Dinker Respirator," Western Journal of Medicine, 1931 July; 35(1), pages 5–7
  3. "The technical exposition," Journal of the American Medical Association,  1931, vol. 96, no. 19, page 1617, http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/96/19/1615.full.pdf
  4. Drinker, Charles, Charles F. McKhann, "The Use of a New Apparatus for the Prolonged Administration of Artificial Respiration: A Fatal Case of Poliomyelitis," Journal of the American Medical Association,  May 18, 1929, reprinted in same publication on March 21, 1986, volume 255, no. 11, pages 1473-1475; 
  5. Drinker, Phillip, Louis Shaw, "An apparatus for the prolonged administration of artificial respiration,"  Journal of Clinical Investigation, June 29, 1929, 7 (2), pages 229-247
  6. "Philip Drinker '15 given medal of invention," The Princeton Alumni Weekly, October 23, 1931, volume 32, page 95
  7. "Obituaries: Phillip Drinker 1894-1972," Anal of Occupational Hygiene, 1973, 16 (1), pages 93-94
  8. truy this one or this one or htis one. or htis one 'list of landmark articles,            check out this presentation

Monday, June 12, 2017

1910-1930: Early resuscitators were over-hyped

1916 ad for Lungmotor
(From JimPaul.org)
One of the strongest criticisms of the early mechanical resuscitators, such as Bratt's Apparatus, Pulmotor, and Lungmotor, is that they were generally given credit for saving lives where credit was not due.  Basically, these devices were nothing more than money makers for manufacturers, and improved public relations for the companies that owned one.

For instance, note the following hints provided by the Lungmotor booklet:
HINTS ON CARE OF THE APPARENTLY DROWNED 1. Send for the doctor. 2. Promote warmth and circulation, friction toward the heart. (Daniels.) 3. Patient should be kept in bed and sleep encouraged. 4. Watch for secondary asphyxia. If this occurs proceed to restore the patient the second time. 5. If in house open the windows, let patient get fresh air. 6. Do not let people crowd around patient. 7. SEND FOR LUNGMOTOR. 8. Start Manual Methods until LUNGMOTOR arrives. 9. Do not move patient too much. 10. Do not allow patient to walk after resuscitation for twenty minutes at least. 11. Keep patient warm as possible. (1, page 19)
1914 demonstration of Lungmotor (From JimPaul.org)
I don't know about you, but this seems rather lapse.  If you can get a "drowning" patient to a bed, and spend time being concerned about the air in the room and whether there are people around, then the victim is truly no as critical as might be implied here.

The most stunning suggestion here might be #10:   Do not allow patient to walk after resuscitation for twenty minutes at least.

As any person knows who has participated in a respiratory or cardiopulmonary arrest, the person does not simply get up and desire to start walking around. Chances are, the patients these devices worked on were still breathing, still had a heart beat, and were simply stunned by being under water. Chances are they would have been just fine with or withouthe Lungmotor.  

Thoughts? 

References: 
  1. "Drowning: Historical-Statistical Methods of Resuscitation," no author nor editor listed, Published by Lungmotor Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1920

Friday, June 9, 2017

1955-1985: The IPPB Revolution

"This 1960s Monaghan Ventalung ad is a part 
of our IPPB Virtual Museum.http://museum.aarc.org/gallery/ippb/,"
said an AARC Facebook post on 3/25/16
Respiratory therapists who worked between 1955 and 1985, and many of their patients, became well acquainted with Intermittent Positive Pressure Breathing (IPPB).

IPPB therapy was first described in 1947, although wouldn't become popular until the Bird Mark 7 was introduced in 1955.

According to the 2012 edition of "Respiratory Care: Principles And Practice of Medicine," IPPB is "short-term or episodic mechanical ventilation for the primary purpose of assisting ventilation and providing short duration hyperinflation therapy." (2, page 370)

The lungs were inflated with a flow of pressure during inspiration, and expiration occurs when the flow is stopped by natural recoil of the lungs. (3, page 1158)

The machines were pneumatic, meaning they were operated by gas under pressure and not electricity. Tubing from the machine was connected to a 50 PSI source, and this was all that was needed to operate them.

Bird Mark 7
Any positive pressure breathing machine could be used, although the Bird Mark 7 is often cited as the machine that made IPPB therapy famous. This is because it was the first lightweight, portable, and durable, pneumatic pressure breathing machine.  It was also very easy to operate. However, other common IPPB machines were the Mark 1, Bennet TV-2P, and Monaghan Ventalung Respirator.

IPPB therapy for the treatment of post operative complications was first described in 1947, although the introduction of the Bird Mark 7 in 1955 would give birth to the IPPB Revolution that would last until 1985. At some hospitals, this type of therapy would not be phased out until the 2000s.

What were IPPB Treatments?

 Many hospitals set up IPPB Rooms, where several IPPB machines were lined up in a row. Patients would come in for their 15-20 minutes of IPPB therapy 3-4 times every day. Inpatients would be wheeled to this room, although bedside therapy could also be performed.  Eventually IPPB rooms would be phased out in favor of bedside therapy.

Therapists would set up the machines by dialing the appropriate sensitivity, flow and pressure levels. The flow level determined how much pressure was given to the patient. Sensitivity determined how hard the patient had to work to trigger a breath. The pressure was usually set between 10 and 20 cwp. A circuit from the machine was then connected to either a mouthpiece or mask.

As an adjunct, nebulized medicine could be added to the circuit via a nebulier cup that was connected to a flowmeter via oxygen tubing. The most common medicines used during the 1950s were the bronchodilator Isuprel, mucus thinners called Alevaire and Mucomyst, surface tension reducer ethyl alcohol (to control foaming pulmonary edema, antibiotics, and other medicines.

Patients were encouraged to create a tight seal around the mouthpiece. A mask and nose clips could be used as necessary. Patients were then encouraged to start a breath and let the machine do the work. The medicine, if included, was inhaled during inspiration. The treatments would generally last around 15 minutes, depending on how coordinated and cooperative the patient was.

For patients, it felt as though a rush of air was filling their airways. For therapists, constant monitoring was necessary to make sure patients were getting effective breaths. They could adjust settings as necessary. The most common setting to adjust was flow, which determined how fast a breath filled airways. Flow was essential to coordinating machine breaths with patient breaths.  Pressure may also be increased or decreased depending on the comfort level of the patient.

What were IPPB Theoeries?

Over time, three theories regarding IPPB therapy were developed.
  1. Hyperinflation therapy. It was believed hyper-inflating airways acted as a means of preventing and treating atelectasis and pneumonia, particularly in post-operative or bedridden patients, or anyone receiving large doses or sedatives or narcotics to control pain or anxiety. 
  2. Inflation therapy.  It was believed that positive pressure breaths would open up airways, particularly terminal airways and alveoli, that had collapsed. This, or so it was thought, would treat atelectasis, particularly post operative atelectasis caused by shallow breathing due to anaesthetics or narcotics. 
  3. Nebulizer therapy.  It was believed that inhaling respiratory medicine with positive pressure would result in better distribution of the medicine.
During the 1960s IPPB therapy became famous for treating and preventing post operative atelectasis and pneumonia.  During the 1970s IPPB therapy was increasingly used to treat respiratory ailments. So, while initially used mainly to treat and prevent and treat post operative complications, it was ultimately used for just about any patient in the hospital settings.

When was IPPB ordered?

According to a 1957 article in the The American Journal of Nursing, "Nebulization Under Intermittent Positive Pressure," the following were marked as conditions treatable with this IPPB therapy: (8)
  1. Pulnonary edema
  2. Atelectasis
  3. Bronchial asthma
  4. Bronchiectatsis
  5. Emphysema
  6. Pulmonary fibrosis
  7. Silicosis
  8. Impairment of respiratory function resulting from barbituate poisoning
  9. Impairment of respiratory function resulting from Poliomyelitis." (3, page 1158)
The article cited the following indications for this therapy: 
  1. Overcome breathing resistance
  2. Provide more uniform alveolar aeration
  3. Distribute aerosols to terminal bronchioles where absorption takes place
  4. Relieve bronchospasm
  5. Improve bronchial drainage
  6. Provide exercise for respiratory muscles
  7. Improve pulmonary functon (3, page 1158)
What medicines were used with IPPB therapy?

Most circuits were fitted with nebulizers so medicine could be inhaled during therapy. In 1957, the most common solutions for nebulization with IPPB were:
  • Ethyl alcohol: To calm the foaming bubbles in pulmonary edema
  • Isuprel: a bronchodilator used to relax smooth muscles in asthma, COPD
  • Vaponephrine (Racemic epinephrine): which acts as a fast acting bronchodilator
  • Mucomyst: A mucus thinner used to help COPD, CF patients expectorate sputum
  • Alevaire (tyloxapol solution): A mucus thinner also used to help patients with thick sputum expectorate it.  (3, page 1158)
Other solutions used at one time or another included:
  1. Tergemist. Another mucus thinner
  2. Alupent (metraproterenol). A short acting bronchodilator
  3. Ventolin (Albuterol). A short acting bronchodilator
Over time ethyl alcohol and alevaire were phased out, and Isuprel was replaced by alupent and later albuterol. Occasionally, other medicines would be thrown into the mix. A treatment session generally lasted until the medicine was gone, or about 15-30 minutes, depending on how cooperative an individual patient was with the therapy. 

What caused the decline of the IPPB Revolution?

Doctors were basically writing way too many IPPB orders, and respiratory therapists were required to do them. It probably didn't take long for therapists to question the effectiveness of this type of therapy.

You see, back then respirator therapy procedures were fully reimbursable. IPPB therapy was far more expensive than nebulizer therapy, so this would have resulted in huge profits. So, despite concerns by therapists, administrators had no incentive to buck the system and question the relevance of orders.

The party ended during the 1970s when insurance agents looking to cut costs gained wind of the skepticism and began to scrutinize IPPB therapy. They pressured researchers to find evidence it did what it was believed to do. And the returns did not paint a rosy picture. (2)

For instance:
  • Studies showed a 25 percent increase in tidal volume was needed for this therapy to be effective, yet there was no means of measuring tidal volumes.
  • Studies showed that IPPB therapy deposit 32% less aerosolized medicine to the lungs than a simple aerosol treatment. (2,, page 370)
  • Any benefits provided from the therapy were also proven to be short lived, lasting less than an hour. (2, page 370)
  • IPPB therapy has been shown to have no greater benefit than other lung expansion techniques, such as having patients use insentive spirometers and chest physiotherapy. (2, page 370)
  • In fact, a 1978 study showed that atelectasis occurred in 35% of patients using IPPB, 15% using incentive spirometry, and 8% using blow bottles. (6)
  • A study published in Chest in 1961 showed that IPPB did not prevent post-operative complications. A theory postulated was that inhalations were not deep enough to be therapeutic, and "these findings occurred despite constant urgings by competently trained inhalation therapists to the patients to make maximum respiratory efforts In both depth and length." (7, page 130-131)
  • It was shown to only overinflate good alveoli while having no effect on collapsed alveoli.
The 1961 study also noted the following:
"Each treatment was personally supervised by an inhalation therapist, a condition that would exist in few hospitals today. This emphasizes even more forcibly the danger of leaving the work of stimulating the post-operative patient to breathe to a "machine" even when supervised. Elevating the pressure might help force the issue making It more difficult for the patient to voluntarily stop inspiration. The recognition of these facts compromise the real value of this study. The I.P.P.B. machine, as used in this study, cannot replace the bedside work of the post-operative surgical team." (7, page 132)
Furthermore, the researchers noted:
Early circuites were non-disposable,
and most contained a nebulizer cup.
I.P.P.B. did not seem to reduce post-operative discomfort, did not hasten ambulation time, and did not reduce total hospital stay. These are expected observations when it was shown the post-operative pulmonary complications were not prevented. (7, page 132) 
So studies as far back as 1961 failed to confirm the efficacy of this type of therapy, and they were pretty much ignored. However, during the 1970s, this form of therapy would come under scrutiny by insurance agents, who started accusing doctors and hospitals of abusing the system.  The RT textbook, "Foundations of Respiratory Care," sums it up nicely:  (3)
"The Overuse of IPPB was eventually to become an embarrassment to the profession, but in the 1950s and 1960s, IPPB devices could be seen throughout most hospitals in the United States." 
When did the IPPB Revolution end? It did not die quickly. Despite the evidence, physicians were still convinced that it did some good. They were convinced that giving certain patients intermittent mechanical breaths would prevent respiratory failure and the need for intubation and continuous mechanical ventilation.

When I first started as a therapist in 1996 it seemed there were quite a few IPPB orders. Although as time went by, there were fewer and fewer. I remember one of my coworkers grumbling with each new order, saying, "Studies show that all they do is over-inflate good alveoli." He showed me the study he was referencing proving that he was right.

My last IPPB order came in 2012. Like my coworkers, I grumbled and griped about the order, but did the best with the knowledge I had to coach the patient toward correct technique. The patient was not cooperative, and refused to finish the treatment. And that was the end of any dust that remained of the IPPB Revolution.

Many larger hospitals had relegated their Mark 7 Respirators to the render regions of their storage rooms where they collected dust for several years just in case an order came. Our two Mark 7's made for nice coat hangers before they were finally taken away in during the summer of 2015.

For nearly 50 years IPPB therapy was a fixture in hospitals, and this was despite any evidence that it ever did any good. This is a theme that plays out so many times in our history, where theories are treated as facts until proven false.

References:
  1. Glover, Dennis, "History of Respiratory Therapy," 
  2. Hess, Dean R., et al, "Respiratory Care:  Principles and Practice," 2012, "Intermittent Positive Pressure Breathing," chapter 18, page 370 
  3. Stephen, Phyllis Jean, "Nebulization Under Intermittent Positive Pressure," The American Journal of Nursing," 1957, Sept., vol. 57, No. 9, pages 1158-1160
  4. Hess, Dean R., et al, "Respiratory Care:  Principles and Practice," 2012, "Intermittent Positive Pressure Breathing," chapter 18, page 370
  5. Wyka, Kenneth A., Paul J. Mathews, William F. Clark, ed., "Fundamentals of Respiratory Care," 2002, . page 630, Section IV, Essential Therapeutics
  6. Iverson, Li, et al., "A comparative study of IPPB, the incentive spirometer, blow bottles: the prevention of atelectasis following cardiac surgery," Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 1978, March 25, (3), pages 197-200, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/345985, accessed March 4, 2016
  7. Sands, James H., et al., A Controlled Study Using Intermittent Positive Pressure Breathing in the Post-Surgical Patient," Chest, 1961, August, 40, pages 128-133, http://publications.chestnet.org/pdfAccess.ashx?url=%2Fdata%2FJournals%2FCHEST%2F21358%2F128.pdf,, accessed March 3, 2016

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

1920-1980: The evolution of oxygen delivery devices

By the mid 1920s many of the challenges of oxygen therapy had been tackled.  Oxygen could be easily produced, stored in tanks, and delivered to the patient.  There also existed the means of confirming oxygenation status of patients, and the effects of oxygen therapy.  So the stage was set for oxygen to be introduced to hospitals.

In 1922 John Haldane wrote about his research in "The Therapeutic Administration of Oxygen."
Soon thereafter oxygen tanks became more and more common at the patient bedside.  The tanks were stored in closets, and when needed were strapped by the patient bedside.

There were various devices available for providing oxygen, which included a metal nasal cannula, a nasal catheter, the oxygen chamber, the Haldane Apparatus, and the oxygen rebreather mask or mouthpiece and an oxygen tent.  For patients that were comatose, any device needed to provide therapeutic oxygenation could be used.  For awake and alert patients, the mask posed a claustrophobic feeling, and it was also hot.  The same was true with the oxygen tent.  So the physician would basically have to base what oxygen device he used on the patient.

One of my readers at my Respiratory Therapy Cave blog informed me that, the first practical oxygen tent was invented by Doctor Benjamin Eliasoph in 1921, at The Mount Sinai Hospital,New York, with rubberized fabric from the Goodyear Rubber Company, Aeronautical Division used for balloons such as the widely known Goodyear Blimp." 

This information is confirmed in a New York Times obituary for Dr. Benjamin Eliasoph, which notes: "Dr. Benjamin Eliasoph, a physician at Mount Sinai Hospital who was a pioneer in the design of the oxygen tent, died Sunday at the hospital. He was 70 years old."

The first mass producible oxygen tent was invented by Doctor Leonard Hill.  It consisted of a canopy with slots so the patient could see out that was placed over the bed and patient, and a machine was set at the bedside that blew oxygen into the tent and over the patient.

Dennis Glover, in his 2010 book "A History of Respiratory Therapy," said there was no means of cooling the atmosphere inside these tents, and being inside was almost unbearably hot and uncomfortable for many patients.

Glover said that the most common use for the oxygen tent was for patients presenting with cyanosis due to heart failure or pneumonia.  Some patients would beg to get out of the tents, Glover explained, yet once out they would became short of breath and they'd beg to get back in.  So it was sort of a double edged sword for the patient until the patient got better, if they got better.  Some critics complained such tents basically provided a tortuous method of ending a person's life, and petitioned for their demise.

In 1926 Alvin Barach invented an oxygen tent that blew air over ice chips to cool the temperature inside the tent.  This made it so being inside the tents was much more bearable.  Usually these they were reserved for patients with pneumonia and heart failure. (2)

In 1931 John Emerson invented an oxygen tent that had a cooling system.  Previous devices were prone to rust and failure.  (7)

The metal cannula was another device that was used.  It was a narrow metal pipe that was secured to the forehead by a strap that wrapped around the head, and at the lower end of the pipe were two prongs that were inserted into the nares.  I can imagine this may have felt awkward for the patient, but it may have been much nicer than having to lie inside an oxygen tent or having a rubber mask on your face.

The nasal catheter was introduced to the world by Lane in 1907, and introduced to the United States in 1931 by Waters and Wineland. (3)  Between 1920 and 1960 the nasal catheter was the most widely used method of delivering oxygen to patients. (8)

Glover explained that by the 1960s vinyl had been invented and this technology spread to the medical profession.  Masks, catheters, nasal cannulas and tubing were then made of this new material, and were much more comfortable for patients.  (2)
l
Another benefit was the material was see through, and this allowed the caregivers to see right away if the mask was filling with secretions, vomit or pulmonary edema. This made the masks much safer. They were also disposable, so it removed the need to clean and sterilize between patients.

Vinyl nasal cannulas quickly became the preferred basic oxygenation device, and this slowly caused the demise of the nasal catheter.

The nonrebreather was also introduced during the 1920s.  For those not familiar with these, they involve placing a mask tightly over the patients face to prevent the entry of room air. A one way valve on the mask allows the patient to exhale, but it closes on inhalation. This forces the patient to inhale only oxygen, which enters the airway from tubing which is connected from the mask to an oxygen flow meter. A bag connected to the mask collects oxygen while the patient is exhaling. When the patient inhale, inhales oxygen that is stored in the bag.

It is called a nonrebreather because the patient is not rebreathing any exhaled air. The idea here is that, if there is that if the mask is sealed tightly around the patient's face, and the one way valves are working, then the patient should be inhaling 100% oxygen.

Of course a problem with this system is that there were no surefire methods of knowing how much oxygen was left in an oxygen tank. So when a tank became empty, the patient had not oxygen to inhale, and would die of asphyxia. Learning this the hard way must have given quite a fright to some early orderlies, nurses and doctors.

The remedy to this problem was to remove one of the one way valves to assure that, if the oxygen tanks to run empty, that the patient can still inhale some room air. This is how most nonrebreather masks are produced today. So, while some people still report that nonrebreathers give patients 100% oxygen, the actual percentage is estimated to be between

Nonrebreathers of today aren't even nonrebreathers at all: they are partial rebreathers. Still, it is very common for them to be called nonrebreathers. They aren't generally referred to as partial nonrebreathers until both one way flaps are removed. With both flaps removed, the patient's estimated FiO2 is about 50-60%.

This represents one of the medical conundrums in medicine.

Early masks were also not see through, so if a patient vomited you might not know right away. Newer masks are made of disposable material that is see through, eliminating some of the older complications from these masks.

Regardless, nonrebreathers were good devices for oxygenating patients suffering from acute anoxia.

The next evolutionary breakthrough in oxygen delivery devices came as a result of observations made during the 1950s that some patients given 100% oxygen were becoming lethargic. It was soon realized that these were patients with emphysema and chronic bronchitis, or what we now refer to as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

This was where the hypoxic drive theory was derived from. You can learn about this theory in my post, "Hypoxic Drive Theory: A History of the Myth."  Essentially, this theory postulates that giving too much oxygen to some COPD patients might blunt their drive to breathe. So this resulted in the market for a better oxygen delivery device, and the invention of the Venturi Mask.

The new masks were based on the Venturi Principle, and allowed physicians the opportunity to provide accurate oxygen levels up to 50%. Nasal catheters, and later cannulas, were the preferred method of oxygenating these patients. However, because these devices are low flow devices, changes in the rate and depth of breathing make these less effective. Venturi masks were nice because they guaranteed the patient would get the desired oxygen level.

This was because the masks were based on the Venturi Principle. An adjustable opening allowed the caregiver to determine how much air was being inhaled. The larger the opening, the more air was inhaled and the less oxygen inhaled. The smaller the opening the less air was inhaled and the more oxygen was inhaled. So oxygen could now be set at between 28 and 50%, and this would not be affected by changes in rate or depth of breathing. It was a nice concept, especially for COPD patients.

These masks are still used today as a nice option for patients who are in respiratory distress, or who need a little more oxygen than a nasal cannula can provide, but don't quite need anything higher than 50%. They are generally only made as a temporary oxygen device, although some patients with terminal lung diseases (such as lung cancer) may occasionally use one at home.

By the 1980s plastic had been invented, and during this decade most respiratory therapy devices were slowly replaced by plastic.  Plastic nasal cannulas, masks, and nebulizers were introduced in the early 1980s and slowly phased into various hospitals through assimilation.

The earliest oxygen humidifiers were either made of metal or glass.  Until plastic was invented, none of the equipment here was disposable, and needed to be washed, sterilized, dried, and restocked on the shelves before being set up on the patient. So cleaning respiratory therapy equipment became sort of a secondary job for therapists until this aspect was phased out by turn of the 21st century.

References:
  1. Hess, Dean,  Neil MacIntyre, Shelley Misha,"Respiratory Care:  Principles and Practice," page 281
  2. Glover, Dennis, "History of Respiratory therapy: discovery and evolution, ," 2010, Indiana, page 94
  3. Wyka, Kenneth A., Paul J. Mathews, John Rutkowski, editors, "Foundations of Respiratory Care," 2012, U.S., Delmar, page 9
  4. Hess, Dean,  Neil MacIntyre, Shelley Misha,"Respiratory Care:  Principles and Practice," page 281
  5. Barach, Alvin L., "The Therapeutic Use of Oxygen," The Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 79, No. 9, Chicago, October 26, 1922, page 693-699
  6. Barach, Alvin L, Margaret Woodwell, "Studies in oxygen therapy with determinations of blood gases," Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 28, 1921, Chicago, American Medical Association, pages 367-393
  7. Branson, Richard D, "Jack Emerson:  Notes on his life and contributions to Respiratory Care," Respiratory Care, July 1998, vol. 43, no. 7, pages 567-71
Further Reading:

Thursday, June 1, 2017

1920: The Lungmotor (a resuscitation device)

Lungmotor carrying case.
The Lungmotor was a simple device for assisting emergency crews during the 1910s and 1920s. It's intended use was for patients exposed to gases, electrocutions, or near drownings. 

As you can see by the pictures, it was basically a pump, like a bicycle pump, connected to the patient by tubing and a mask that fit over the patient's mouth and nose.

The Lungmotor with case and booklet.e
The company booklet, simply titled "The Lungmotor," basically recommended the device for near drownings.  The recommendation was for immediate removal of patient from the water. Manual methods should be used to remove mucus and water from the mouth and to provide breaths until the Lungmotor was on the scene.

 "The LUNGMOTER," the booklet says, "will remove the remaining water and mucus at the same time supplying a sufficient volume of air to resuscitate the victim." (1, page 8)

It's "a simple and easily understood device."  (1, page 14)

The LUNGMOTOR consists of two air pumps which operate in unison, yet are not connected in any way as far as the interchange of air is concerned. At no time does the devitalized air come in contact with the fresh air or oxygen.

The Lungmotor was supposedly "foolproof." Operating it was generally "easy," according to the booklet. To operate it all you had to do was: (1, pages 9, 11, 15)
  1. Set the pin to the approximate size of the victim: (1, pages 9, 15)
    • Newborn
    • 5 Years
    • 10 Years
    • 15 Years (or small adult)
    • Adult Average
    • Adult Large
  2. Place the mask on the patient  (1, page 11)
  3. Pump (1, page 11)
The booklet, thus, notes various advantages of their product over competitor products: (1, page 13)
  1. Easy to carry
  2. Easy to understand
  3. Easy to use
  4. It's worked by hand
  5. It can always give air (the kind you use every day)
  6. Or you can add an oxygen tank to supply supplemental oxygen
  7. Easy to increase and decrease volume (just move the pin)
  8. It's safe and sure
A picture of the Lungmotor.
showing predicted tidal volumes
based on size of patient.
A pin was inserted
at the appropriate age
to prevent barotrauma.
 (1, page 9)
It also offers other physiological advantages to the patient: 

1.  It delivers the exact volume of air necessary to maintain the circulation and respiration over a long period of time. This is, as noted above, determined by setting the pin to the estimated size of the patient. (1, page 14)  Thus: 
The LUNGMOTOR does the very next thing to normal breathing because it supplies, mechanically, the tidal volume of air each respiration (the amount you breathe at rest), enough air, but not so much as to possibly injure the Lung tissues and the circulation, thus not leaving the patient liable to pneumonia following. (1, page 
2.  It always gives air to lungs, not stomach:  "This is accomplished by means of a tube which is introduced into the gullet and a bulb on the end blown up bv means of a hand bulb, and a soft rubber tube clamped by a clip. This tube is easily inserted because when pushed backward and down, guided by the under finger, it can go no place else but into the gullet." (1, page 14)

3.  It prevents you from providing too much pressure to patient "thus making it impossible to rupture the delicate tissue of the lungs."  This is due to the operator setting the pin to deliver the appropriate volume of air according to the size of the victim.  (1, page 14)

4.  It offers suction.  This causes expiration, and also allows for the device to "remove instantly and positively the large quantities of slime, mucus and blood that accumulate in the air passages, thus making it possible for the air to be delivered to the lungs which is not always possible (with manual resuscitation)." (1, page 14)

The fact that it offers suction is noted as one of the major advantages of the product, as noted by this passage: (1, page 13)
The fact that it reestablishes the suction action of the thorax on the heart and great vessels in addition to supplying the lungs with the correct amount of fresh air, is the explanation of the wonderful results obtained by the use of the LUNGMOTOR. The unsatisfactory results of past experiments in mechanical resuscitation were due to a failure to attach to this phase of the subject the importance which it deserved. (1, page 13, 18)
5.  It can provide oyxgen:  When not connected to an oxygen tank it supplied room air to the patient, which contains about 21% oxygen.  An oxygen cylinder could also be attached to the device in order to supply the patient with supplemental oxygen. (1, page 9)

6.  No risk of damaging a rib or liver, as often occurs with manual methods of resuscitation.  This risk is "entirely eliminated" with the Lungmotor, at least according to the booklet.

By this photo you can see the simplicity of the device.
It basically consisted of the cylinders, the handle,
and the mask.  (1, page 16)
So, how does it all work?  Again, according to the booklet:
The LUNGMOTOR consists of two cylinders which operate in unison, yet not connected in any way as far as the interchange of air is concerned. At no time does the divitalized air come in contact with the pure air and oxygen.
An upward movement of the handle charges the inspiration cylinder with pure air or any mixture of air and oxygen desired, according to the setting of the mixing valve (b). At the same time the expiration cylinder is filled with the expired air gently expelled from the lungs by the patient due to the natural contractual power of the chest walls and the elasticity of the lungs.
Conversely the following downward movement of the pump handle and piston places the air or the mixture of air and oxygen into the lungs and discharges the impure air through the outlet (o) into the atmosphere. In the case of drowning or new-born babies the water, blood, mucus, etc., is taken care of through the device and discharged at this opening (o).
Thus you see that at every complete stroke of the handle up and down you have a complete respiration, an inspiration, and an expiration—normal breathing mechanically done. (1, pages 14-15)
An early concern of manufacturers of mechanical resuscitators
was to make sure that expired air was kept separate from inspired air.
This was necessary to prevent patients from re-breathing
exhaled air, or exhaled carbon dioxide (CO2).  For this reason
the Lungmotor was designed with 2 separate cylinders,
one for inspiration (left) and one for exhalation.   (1, page 15)
The average breath given to an adult is estimated to be about 700 cc of air, which is "sufficient to maintain life, being, in fact, about 150 cc more than the patient normally breathes; this 150 cc. of air being used to counterbalance the natural resiliency of the lung in order to maintain the normal pressures in the thoracic cavity, and aid mechanically the restoration of the automatic mechanism of circulation by removing the obstruction in the lung, caused by the arteries crooking upon themselves when unconsciousness occurs. " (1, page 6-7)

The makers of the Lungmotor recommended the product be available for use by Rescue Teams, and that when someone was noted to be in a state of "suspended animation" that the rescue team be called for right away. However, in the meantime: "We believe manual methods if there are no other means of resuscitation available. But the use and the results from manual methods are limited." (1, page 6, 17)

Manual breaths, therefore, should be given, preferably by using Prone Method (Shaeffer Method), until the Lungmotor arrives on the scene.  

Criticism of the device was generally similar to any other mechanical resuscitator of the day, that it forced too much air too fast into the lungs, sucked too much air out of the lungs, and could only be used for a short period of time due to worker fatigue.

Note:  An advertisement for the Lungmotor can be found in "Modern Hospital," January, 1915, volume 36, number 1,  page 39

References: 
  1. "Drowning: Historical-Statistical Methods of Resuscitation," no author nor editor listed, Published by Lungmotor Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1920