User experience of MV2000-MT (SU:M2)® as a Mechanical Ventilator: A Comparative Clinical Study on Usability, Safety, and Medical Staff Satisfaction

Abstract

In the present study, we aimed to demonstrate that MV2000-MT(SU:M2)® (MV, MEK-ICS, Paju, Korea), a domestic ventilator, is not inferior in terms of usability, safety, and medical staff satisfaction as compared to Hamilton G5 (G5, Hamilton Medical AG, Rhäzüns, Switzerland). A total of 39 patients who applied MV (group M) or G5 (group H) were included in the study sample. Usability was evaluated by the following factors: the number of alarm errors, replacement requirement of breathing circuit, replacement requirement of a right-angle connector, and ease of ventilator weaning. For safety evaluation, the number of ventilator replacements due to malfunction of the ventilator was evaluated. Items for medical staff satisfaction survey were as follows: the number of MV and G5 uses, hardware, and software assessment. In the usability evaluation, the replacement requirement of the right-angle connector was lower in Group M than in Group H (mean ± standard deviation, Group M: 7.39 ± 6.72, Group H: 14.19 ± 10.24, p = 0.021); however, the evaluations of other parts were not significantly different between the two groups. The number of ventilator replacements due to a malfunction of the ventilator did not differ between two groups. The number of MV and G5 uses was 3.0 [3.0-4.0] and 10.0 [5.0-10.0] (median [interquartile range], p < 0.001). Overall, the mean medical staff satisfaction score of Hamilton G5 was higher than that of MV2000-MT(SU:M2)®. The usability of MV is comparable to that of G5. However, medical staff satisfaction with Hamilton G5 was higher than that with MV2000-MT(SU:M2)®, and this difference could be due to the difference in the number of uses. In order to improve the penetration rate of the domestic mechanical ventilator, it is necessary to find ways to increase familiarity of medical staff with domestic mechanical ventilators.