English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This letter is regarding a recent review article in Critical Care [1]. Platen et al. [1] refer to another review article but do not cite any of the references of that article by Tehrani that describe a system known as adaptive support ventilation (ASV) except a conference paper in 1991. No other articles that describe the same main features of a system marketed as IntelliVent-ASV are cited either. Tables 1 and 2 of the paper by Platen et al. [1] provide no reference to any of the publications by Tehrani et al. on either control of ventilation or control of oxygenation. Even when Platen et al. [1] refer to a 1991 conference paper by Tehrani, they make misleading and incorrect statements. They claim the idea of minimization of the respiratory work, as proposed by Otis et al. [2] was used by Mitamura et al. [3]. The hypothesis by Otis et al. [2] that breathing frequency is optimized to minimize the respiratory work rate was not in relation to positivepressure mechanical ventilation, which was not even used in practice in 1950. That hypothesis was confirmed by some and challenged by some physiologists until it was used for the first time, along with modifications, and many other features in an invention to automatically control mechanical ventilation in synchrony with a patient’s natural breathing. A patent covering that invention was issued in 1991 [4]. One of the embodiments of that patent is known as ASV, and the product has been marketed under license of that patent. The details of how the manufacturer of ASV used the invention and eventually had to get a license on the patent have already been published and are not repeated here for brevity. Despite what is claimed in the paper by Platen et al. [1], Mitamura et al. [3] rejected the approach by Otis et al. [2] for not producing realistic results and adopted the work of Mikami and Yoshimoto [5] (see Figure 4 in [3]). In brief, an objective review should not ignore or undermine some of the important contributions to a field.

In regard to P. von Platen et al., “The dawn of physiological closed-loop ventilation—a review”