The purpose of this work is the conception and implementation of an artificial active respiratory system that allows the simulation of human respiratory activities. The system consists of two modules, mechanical and electronical. The first one represents a cylindrical lung adjustable in resistance and compliance. This lung is located inside a transparent thoracic box, connected to a piston that generates variable respiratory efforts. The parameters of the system, which are pressure, flow and volume, are measured by the second module. A computer application was developed to control the whole system, and enables the display of the parameters. A series of tests were made to evaluate the respiratory efforts, resistances and compliances. The results were compared to the bibliographical studies, allowing the validation of the proposed system.

Several studies have shown that chest compressions (CC) alone may produce in addition to blood circulation, a short-term passive ventilation. However, it is not clear whether high CC quality may produce in even greater amount of ventilation volumes. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether CC, using a new feedback device, can produce a substantial and sustainable passive volumes compared to standard CC. Thirty inexperienced volunteers performed CC for 2 min on a developed thoracic lung model and using a new feedback device. Participants were randomized into two groups that performed either CC with feedback first, followed by a trial without feedback, or vice versa. Efficient compression rate (correct CC rate and depth simultaneously) was significantly higher in feedback session (43.6% versus 25.5%; P = 0.006). As well, CC rate and depth efficiency were improved with feedback. Moreover, average tidal volumes and minute volumes that occurred during CC alone were significantly improved in feedback session (79.8 ± 5 ml versus 72.9 ± 7 ml) and (8.8 l/min versus 7.9 l/min), respectively (P < 0.001). Yet, no significant difference was found between the first and the 90th second interval (9.04 l/min versus 8.68 l/min, P = 0.163) in the feedback session. Conversely, a significant difference was evident after the first 15th seconds interval without feedback (8.77 l/min initially versus 8.38 l/min; P = 0.041). This study revealed that the new CPR feedback device improved CC quality in inexperienced volunteers. As well, the passive ventilation volumes were significantly increased and sustained when the device was used.