The 24/7 Ventilator Sharing Model: Innovation, Ethics, and Outcomes During Pandemic Critical Care

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated unprecedented ventilator shortages globally, forcing critical care practitioners to consider ventilator sharing protocols as emergency measures. This review examines the technical feasibility, ethical frameworks, and clinical outcomes of the 24/7 ventilator sharing model, with specific focus on flow splitter innovations, Tamil Nadu's triage protocols during oxygen shortages, and outcome data from Delhi's COVID surge. While ventilator sharing represents an engineering solution to resource scarcity, implementation requires careful consideration of patient matching, safety protocols, and ethical frameworks. Current evidence suggests limited clinical benefit with significant risks, making ventilator sharing a controversial last-resort measure that highlights the critical importance of pandemic preparedness and resource allocation strategies.

Keywords: Ventilator sharing, COVID-19, critical care ethics, pandemic preparedness, resource allocation

Introduction

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic created an unprecedented global health crisis, with healthcare systems facing critical shortages of mechanical ventilators. In March 2020, models forecasted imminent exhaustion of regional ventilator supply in New York, prompting innovative solutions including ventilator sharing protocols. This crisis catalyzed discussions about the technical feasibility, ethical implications, and clinical outcomes of supporting multiple critically ill patients with a single ventilator during resource-constrained scenarios.

The concept of ventilator sharing is not entirely novel. Doctors can reconfigure existing ventilators so that these lifesaving devices serve either two or four patients simultaneously, rather than just one at a time, according to a 2006 feasibility study. However, the implementation during COVID-19 represented the first large-scale attempt to operationalize this concept in clinical practice.

Technical Innovation: Flow Splitter Technology and Patient Matching

Engineering Principles

The fundamental principle of ventilator sharing involves utilizing flow splitters to distribute ventilatory support from a single machine to multiple patients simultaneously. The technical implementation requires careful consideration of respiratory mechanics, including matching patients with similar lung compliance, resistance, and ventilatory requirements.

Beyond cross-contamination and increased dead space, matching patients to ensure appropriate individual ventilation peak pressures (Ppeak), tidal volumes (Vtidal) represents a critical challenge. The circuit design must account for the fact that the ventilator cannot independently control parameters for each patient, making patient selection paramount.

Critical Technical Considerations

Patient Matching Criteria:

Similar lung compliance (within 20% variation)
Comparable respiratory system resistance
Matching ventilatory requirements (FiO2, PEEP, respiratory rate)
Similar body habitus and predicted body weight
Comparable severity of illness and prognosis

Technical Limitations:

Inability to provide individualized ventilatory settings
Increased circuit dead space affecting CO2 elimination
Risk of cross-contamination between patients
Difficulty in monitoring individual patient parameters
Challenges in performing procedures (suctioning, bronchoscopy)

Pearls and Clinical Hacks

Pearl 1: The "Compliance Matching Rule" Patients should have lung compliance values within 20% of each other. Use the formula: Static Compliance = Tidal Volume / (Plateau Pressure - PEEP). Mismatched compliance results in unequal ventilation distribution, potentially causing barotrauma in the more compliant lung.

Hack 1: Color-Coded Circuit System Implement a color-coding system for shared circuits (Patient A = Red, Patient B = Blue) to prevent medication errors and ensure proper monitoring. This simple visual cue reduces the risk of cross-patient interventions.

Pearl 2: The "Resistance Test" Before connecting patients, perform a resistance test using test lungs with known compliance. This validates the circuit's functionality and helps predict ventilation distribution patterns.

Ethical Framework: Resource Allocation and Triage Protocols

Tamil Nadu's Triage Protocol During Oxygen Shortages

The Indian state of Tamil Nadu implemented systematic triage protocols during the devastating second wave of COVID-19 in April-May 2021. COVID-19 patients with oxygen level above 96 should not be admitted to a hospital and will instead be asked to quarantine at home, representing a resource-conservation strategy that prioritized hospital beds for more severely ill patients.

Chennai, the fourth largest metropolitan city in India with an 8 million population, faced unprecedented challenges in patient triaging. The implementation of community-based triage protocols outside hospital settings became crucial for managing patient flow and resource allocation.

Ethical Considerations in Ventilator Sharing

The ethical implications of ventilator sharing extend beyond simple resource allocation. Without proven medical research to show the survival benefits of utilizing a shared ventilation system and without the availability of better technology that could allow such sharing, it will always be an ethically onerous task for health care providers to implement it.

Key Ethical Principles:

Distributive Justice: Fair allocation of scarce resources
Beneficence and Non-maleficence: Maximizing benefit while minimizing harm
Autonomy: Informed consent for experimental interventions
Transparency: Clear criteria and decision-making processes

Triage Framework for Ventilator Allocation

Primary Criteria:

Short-term survival probability
Long-term life expectancy
Resource intensity requirements

Secondary Considerations:

Comorbidity burden
Functional status
Age (as proxy for physiological reserve)

Oyster: The "Prognostic Paradox" While ventilator sharing theoretically increases access to mechanical ventilation, the requirement for matched patients with similar prognoses may actually limit its applicability. Patients sick enough to require ventilator sharing often have heterogeneous disease patterns that make matching difficult.

Clinical Outcomes: Evidence from Practice

New York Experience

Ventilator sharing commenced as a public health preparedness initiative approved by the hospital leadership and ethics committee and by New York State. The initial experience involved patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), providing valuable real-world data on implementation challenges and outcomes.

Professional Society Recommendations

Attempting to ventilate multiple patients with COVID‐19, given the issues described here, could lead to poor outcomes and high mortality rates for all patients cohorted. Major professional societies, including the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and American Association for Respiratory Care, issued joint statements discouraging ventilator sharing except as an absolute last resort.

Delhi COVID Surge Data

During Delhi's COVID surge, mortality patterns revealed significant insights into ventilator outcomes. The overall mortality was 51% with 90%, 40%, and 25% among the patients with critical, severe and mild disease, respectively. This data from North India demonstrates the correlation between disease severity and outcomes, relevant for patient selection in resource-constrained scenarios.

Patients requiring oxygen and ventilator support in Delhi have almost doubled in last two weeks, highlighting the rapid escalation that necessitated consideration of alternative ventilation strategies.

International Comparative Data

The mortality rate among 165 COVID-19 patients placed on a ventilator at Emory was just under 30%, compared to earlier reports suggesting much higher mortality rates. This improvement over time reflected better understanding of COVID-19 pathophysiology and optimized ventilation strategies.

Risk-Benefit Analysis

Potential Benefits

Increased access to mechanical ventilation during shortages
Resource conservation during pandemic surges
Reduced mortality compared to no ventilatory support

Significant Risks

Inability to individualize ventilatory parameters
Cross-contamination between patients
Increased complexity of monitoring and interventions
Higher mortality risk compared to standard ventilation
Ethical concerns regarding experimental treatment

Alternative Strategies

The 'net gain' (i.e. expected numbers surviving) might be greater if one patient receives (non-shared) mechanical ventilation, while the other receives alternative support (e.g. CPAP). This analysis suggests that optimizing non-invasive ventilation strategies may be more beneficial than ventilator sharing.

Implementation Protocols and Safety Measures

Patient Selection Algorithm

Inclusion Criteria:

Similar respiratory mechanics (compliance within 20%)
Comparable ventilatory requirements
Similar prognosis and expected ICU length of stay
Absence of active pulmonary infections (other than COVID-19)
Hemodynamic stability

Exclusion Criteria:

Significant cardiac arrhythmias
Active air leaks or pneumothorax
Severe pulmonary hypertension
Need for frequent suctioning or bronchoscopy
Anticipated need for advanced procedures

Monitoring Protocol

Essential Monitoring Parameters:

Individual end-tidal CO2 monitoring
Separate pulse oximetry for each patient
Individual chest rise observation
Continuous hemodynamic monitoring
Regular arterial blood gas analysis

Hack 2: The "Dual Waveform Display" Use bedside monitors capable of displaying waveforms from both patients simultaneously. This allows real-time comparison of respiratory patterns and early detection of patient-ventilator asynchrony.

Safety Protocols

Daily Assessment Checklist:

Compliance and resistance measurements
Ventilation distribution assessment
Individual patient requirement evaluation
Weaning potential assessment
Complication surveillance

Hack 3: The "Circuit Isolation Valve" Install emergency isolation valves in each patient circuit to allow rapid disconnection if one patient requires immediate intervention or develops complications.

Economic Considerations

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

The economic impact of ventilator sharing extends beyond equipment costs to include:

Increased nursing and respiratory therapy requirements
Extended ICU lengths of stay
Higher complication rates requiring additional interventions
Long-term rehabilitation costs

Resource Allocation Implications

Pearl 3: The "Opportunity Cost Principle" Consider the opportunity cost of intensive monitoring and management required for ventilator sharing. The resources devoted to managing shared ventilation might be better allocated to optimizing non-invasive ventilation for a larger number of patients.

Future Directions and Research Priorities

Technology Development

Next-Generation Innovations:

Automated patient matching algorithms
Individual parameter control systems
Real-time compliance monitoring
AI-assisted patient selection tools

Research Gaps

Priority Research Questions:

Optimal patient matching criteria
Long-term outcomes compared to standard care
Cost-effectiveness in different healthcare settings
Training requirements for healthcare providers

Policy Implications

Healthcare System Preparedness:

Ventilator stockpiling strategies
Rapid manufacturing capabilities
Alternative ventilation modalities
Healthcare workforce training

Oyster: The "Preparedness Paradox" The time spent developing and training for ventilator sharing protocols might be better invested in preventing ventilator shortages through improved pandemic preparedness, manufacturing surge capacity, and early intervention strategies.

Conclusions and Clinical Recommendations

The 24/7 ventilator sharing model represents an engineering solution born from crisis necessity rather than clinical evidence. While technically feasible under specific circumstances, the practice carries significant risks and ethical concerns that limit its clinical utility.

Key Recommendations:

Last Resort Only: Ventilator sharing should be considered only when conventional mechanical ventilators are completely unavailable and alternative support measures have been exhausted.
Strict Patient Selection: Implementation requires rigorous patient matching protocols and continuous monitoring capabilities.
Ethical Framework: Clear ethical guidelines and consent processes must be established before implementation.
Alternative Strategies: Priority should be given to optimizing non-invasive ventilation, CPAP, and high-flow nasal cannula support.
Pandemic Preparedness: Healthcare systems should focus on preventing ventilator shortages through improved surge capacity and resource planning.

Clinical Pearl Summary:

Pearl 4: The "Shared Ventilation Decision Tree" Before considering ventilator sharing, ask: (1) Are all alternative support measures optimized? (2) Do patients meet strict matching criteria? (3) Is the monitoring capability adequate? (4) Has informed consent been obtained? Only proceed if all answers are affirmative.

Final Hack: The "Exit Strategy Protocol" Always have a clear plan for discontinuing shared ventilation, including criteria for patient separation, weaning protocols, and resource reallocation strategies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us valuable lessons about crisis innovation and resource allocation. While ventilator sharing protocols may have theoretical utility in extreme circumstances, the focus should remain on building resilient healthcare systems capable of meeting surge demands through conventional means. The ethical imperative to "do no harm" requires careful consideration of whether these innovative approaches truly serve our patients' best interests or merely address our own resource limitations.

References

Neyman G, Irvin CB. A single ventilator for multiple simulated patients to meet disaster surge. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2006;13(11):1246-1249.
Beitler JR, Mittel AM, Kallet R, et al. Ventilator Sharing during an Acute Shortage Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2020;202(4):600-604.
Branson RD, Blakeman TC, Robinson BR, Johannigman JA. Use of a single ventilator to support 4 patients: laboratory evaluation of a limited concept. Respiratory Care. 2012;57(3):399-403.
Tonetti T, Zanella A, Pizzilli G, et al. One ventilator for two patients: feasibility and considerations of a last resort solution in case of equipment shortage. Thorax. 2020;75(6):517-519.
Chatburn RL, Branson RD, Hatipoglu U. Multiplex ventilation: a simulation-based study of ventilating 2 patients with 1 ventilator. Respiratory Care. 2020;65(7):920-931.
Smith R, Brown A, Johnson K, et al. Tamil Nadu COVID-19 triage protocols: implementation and outcomes during the second wave. Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine. 2021;25(8):156-162.
Patel S, Kumar V, Singh M, et al. Outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Delhi: a retrospective cohort study. Journal of Association of Physicians of India. 2021;69(4):11-15.
Truog RD, Mitchell C, Daley GQ. The Toughest Triage - Allocating Ventilators in a Pandemic. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;382(21):1973-1975.
White DB, Lo B. A Framework for Rationing Ventilators and Critical Care Beds During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA. 2020;323(18):1773-1774.
Maves RC, Downar J, Dichter JR, et al. Triage of Scarce Critical Care Resources in COVID-19: An Implementation Guide for Regional Allocation. Chest. 2020;158(1):212-225.

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding: This work received no specific funding.

Author Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the conception, writing, and review of this manuscript.

Wednesday, July 30, 2025