{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02679830747531735, 'fraction_numerical': 0.021156558533145273, 'mean_word_length': 5.090128755364807, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Development and Evaluation of a Flow‐Dividing Unit for Differential Ventilation and Selective PEEP

Differential ventilation with selective positive end‐expiratory pressure (PEEP) was studied in a two‐compartment lung model, using one ventilator and a flow‐dividing unit consisting of inspiratory flow resistors and an inspiratory threshold valve. The compliance of each lung compartment was varied between 0.15 and 0.23 1 ⋅ kPa‐1 and the resistance was varied from 0 to 3.5 kPa ⋅ 1‐1 ⋅ s. The minute volume was 12 1 and the respiratory frequency 12/min, with an inspiratory:expiratory ratio of 1:2. An even distribution of ventilation to the two lung compartments was obtained with the inspiratory flow resistors or the threshold valve under all conditions studied. However, a stepwise increase in the inspiratory resistance of one lung compartment from 1.0 to 2.5 or from 2.5 to 3.5 kPa ⋅ 1‐1 ⋅ s required readjustment of the inspiratory flow resistor to achieve an even distribution of ventilation, whereas the inspiratory threshold valve needed no readjustment. Large differences in the inspiratory impedance of the two lung compartments caused asynchronous gas delivery when the ventilation distribution was adjusted by means of the flow resistors. Use of the threshold valve resulted in synchronous gas delivery. The flow‐dividing unit consists of non‐active elements and can thus be connected to any ventilator.