Hydrogenology
Hydrogenology editorial study record

Performance of unmodified mechanical ventilators with 2% hydrogen gas mixtures

Mancebo JG, Sack K, Nguyen R, Peng Y, Sosa S, Anders M, Roddy DJ, Kheir JN. · Respiratory Care. 2025;70(4):377–383.

PreclinicalOther formsPublished 2025
Study record, not medical adviceThis page reports one source and Hydrogenology’s source-text extraction. It does not establish that molecular hydrogen is effective, safe or appropriate for any person. Human, animal and laboratory evidence must not be treated as equivalent.
Source and classification

What kind of evidence is this?

Evidence stream

Preclinical

Reported design

Bench test of four clinical mechanical-ventilator models using a simulated patient/test lung

Research topic

Critical care and ischemia-reperfusion

Administration classification

Other forms

Study result signal

Not reported in this record.

Outcome type

Not reported in this record.

Reported in the source

Methods at a glance

Population or model

Servo-i, Servo-u, Evita Infinity V500 and Babylog VN500 ventilators connected to a closed test-lung circuit; no living subjects.

Sample

Five replicates per tidal-volume/FIO₂ combination; pre-use checks repeated three times, with the Babylog failure replicated in three separate units.

Duration

Repeated bench runs and pre-use checks; no treatment duration or patient exposure.

Intervention

Certified premixed 2% H₂/98% O₂ and 2% H₂/21% O₂/balance N₂ were attached to ventilator O₂ and air inlets.

Hydrogen form

Low-concentration premixed H₂/O₂/N₂ gases — not Brown's gas; both contained 2% H₂ rather than a 2:1 H₂:O₂ electrolytic mixture.

H₂ specification

Ventilators were tested across 25–500 mL tidal volumes and set FIO₂ 0.21–1.0; delivered H₂ measured 1.9–2.1%.

H₂ flow

No single H₂ mL/min value: inspiratory flow/minute ventilation varied by ventilator settings, and H₂ was 2% of the delivered total gas.

O₂ delivered with H₂

O₂ ranged from 21% to 98% in source mixtures and across set FIO₂ values; no single O₂ mL/min flow applies.

Comparator

The same ventilators supplied by standard hospital wall air/O₂ without H₂.

Reported, not endorsed

Outcomes and reported result

Outcomes measured

Set-versus-delivered tidal volume and FIO₂, inspired H₂ concentration and pre-use-check errors.

Reported result

Servo-i, Servo-u and Evita V500 stayed within the study's ±10% accuracy criterion for tidal volume/FIO₂ and passed checks. Babylog VN500 overdelivered volume by roughly two- to three-fold (average bias −89.2%) and consistently failed its neonatal flow-sensor check with H₂ mixtures, despite acceptable FIO₂ readings.

Results-extraction completeness

The complete free PMC article, settings, table, supplementary-delivery result and disclosures were checked for both gas mixtures, variable flow, all four ventilators, positive and device-failure findings, regulatory cautions, funding and conflicts.

A reported association, difference or mechanism is not automatically a clinical benefit. Null findings, outcome type, study design and precision all matter.

Interpretation limits

Cautions and applicability

Design and reporting cautions

Bench volume-control testing only, specific ventilator models/software, no pressure-control/non-invasive/anesthesia systems and no animal/patient safety or efficacy. The authors state H₂ mixtures were not FDA-approved for human use at publication. NIH funded the work; authors disclosed no conflicts.

Applies directly to

Device-compatibility evidence for trial planning; it does not authorize H₂ ventilation or prove clinical benefit.

Preliminary appraisal framework

Not reported in this record.

Preliminary risk-of-bias status

Not reported in this record.

Appraisal rationale

Not reported in this record.

No single-study GRADE certainty rating is assigned. Certainty is assessed by important outcome across a complete eligible evidence set, not by attaching a final grade to one source.

Provenance

Sources and record status

Identifiers

PMID: 39969918 · DOI: 10.4187/respcare.12371

Publisher access

Free full article in PubMed Central.

Extraction basis

Complete PMC article and PubMed metadata; full-text extraction checked 9 August 2026.

Record revision

2026-08-10