Doctors keep patient alive using ‘artificial lungs’ for two days

Novel artificial lungs could help keep people whose lungs no longer function alive long enough to get an organ transplant

Side by side x-rays. The image on the right is foggy white

X-rays show a patient's chest with lungs in place and then removed. An artificial system kept him alive for two days without any lungs.

Northwestern Medicine

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In 2023 thoracic surgeon Ankit Bharat was working at Northwestern Memorial Hospital when he was drafted to help a 33-year-old influenza patient who was on the verge of death. Bharat recalls that the man had developed a secondary infection from one of the “most dreaded bugs” in the hospital, Pseudomonas, and had been put on a ventilator. The patient’s lungs were filling with fluid and pus, his kidneys were failing, and his heart was barely working, Bharat says. “He was actively dying.”

Then the patient’s heart stopped. “We got him back—but it was very clear we had to do something right away,” Bharat says.

The man needed a double-lung transplant, but there was a problem: he was too sick for Bharat and his colleagues to attempt the operation. But Bharat knew that without a working set of lungs, the patient would die regardless. He had already been on a life-support system called extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) to oxygenate his blood, but that treatment can’t sustain a patient without lungs in their body, Bharat says.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


So Bharat and his team worked up a plan: they would build “artificial lungs” that could help pump blood from the right side of the patient’s heart to the left side, oxygenate it and send it on to the rest of the body.

Two doctors perform surgery on a patient

Chitaru Kurihara (left) and Ankit Bharat (right) operate on the patient, removing his damaged lungs and attaching the artificial lungs.

Northwestern Medicine

Bharat likens the novel system to adding a bridge to a highway: like interstate traffic, blood travels from the right side of the heart to the lungs, then to the left side of the heart and then throughout the body. With no lungs, the highway hits a dead end. Bharat’s artificial lungs literally bridged the gap—moving and oxygenating blood in place of the patient’s lungs, which were removed. And to prevent a “traffic jam” on that bridge, Bharat’s team also built an “exit” road for blood to return to the right side of the heart.

The system kept the patient alive for two days, effectively lungless, letting him begin to recover from the infection. “It was almost like a curse or something that just got lifted,” Bharat says. “And suddenly everything started to heal.”

The patient was placed on the lung transplant candidate list—and just hours later he had a donor. The team completed the transplant, and after some extra weeks of recovering in the hospital, the man was discharged, weak but alive.

Now, more than two years later, “he’s doing great, by the way,” Bharat says.

Systems similar to Bharat’s artificial lungs have been described by doctors before, says Matthew Hartwig, a professor of surgery at Duke University, who was not involved with the patient’s care. But Bharat’s method, he says, offers “a novel approach” to “the same problem that everyone is facing” in the field. The process is described in a paper published in the journal Med.

Bharat hopes his lung system can be used at other hospitals as a “nuclear option” to save patients who are critically ill. “We have described all the lessons that we’ve learned in that paper, how we came up with every single configuration, what is the rationale behind it, and anybody can replicate that,” he says. “There is nothing proprietary about this.”

He hopes it could ultimately mean there will be more success stories like that of the patient he helped save in 2023. “Even at the end of the day, if we save one extra life, we’ll be happy with that,” Bharat says.

Jackie Flynn Mogensen is a breaking news reporter at Scientific American. Before joining SciAm, she was a science reporter at Mother Jones, where she received a National Academies Eric and Wendy Schmidt Award for Excellence in Science Communications in 2024. Mogensen holds a master’s degree in environmental communication and a bachelor’s degree in earth sciences from Stanford University. She is based in New York City.

More by Jackie Flynn Mogensen
Scientific American Magazine Vol 334 Issue 4This article was published with the title “Automatic Breathing” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 334 No. 4 (), p. 16
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican042026-37P0FFiGzxqAoaWt5FZebu

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe