Dataset Information

The occlusion tests and end-expiratory esophageal pressure: measurements and comparison in controlled and assisted ventilation.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Esophageal pressure is used as a reliable surrogate of the pleural pressure. It is conventionally measured by an esophageal balloon placed in the lower part of the esophagus. To validate the correct position of the balloon, a positive pressure occlusion test by compressing the thorax during an end-expiratory pause or a Baydur test obtained by occluding the airway during an inspiratory effort is used. An acceptable catheter position is defined when the ratio between the changes in esophageal and airway pressure (?Pes/?Paw) is close to unity. Sedation and paralysis could affect the accuracy of esophageal pressure measurements. The aim of this study was to evaluate, in mechanically ventilated patients, the effects of paralysis, two different esophageal balloon positions and two PEEP levels on the ?Pes/?Paw ratio measured by the positive pressure occlusion and the Baydur tests and on the end-expiratory esophageal pressure and respiratory mechanics (lung and chest wall). METHODS:Twenty-one intubated and mechanically ventilated patients (mean age 64.8 ± 14.0 years, body mass index 24.2 ± 4.3 kg/m(2), PaO2/FiO2 319.4 ± 117.3 mmHg) were enrolled. In step 1, patients were sedated and paralyzed during volume-controlled ventilation, and in step 2, they were only sedated during pressure support ventilation. In each step, two esophageal balloon positions (middle and low, between 25-30 cm and 40-45 cm from the mouth) and two levels of PEEP (0 and 10 cmH2O) were applied. The ?Pes/?Paw ratio and end-expiratory esophageal pressure were evaluated. RESULTS:The ?Pes/?Paw ratio was slightly higher (+0.11) with positive occlusion test compared with Baydur's test. The level of PEEP and the esophageal balloon position did not affect this ratio. The ?Pes and ?Paw were significantly related to a correlation coefficient of r = 0.984 during the Baydur test and r = 0.909 in the positive occlusion test. End-expiratory esophageal pressure was significantly higher in sedated and paralyzed patients compared with sedated patients (+2.47 cmH2O) and when esophageal balloon was positioned in the low position (+2.26 cmH2O). The esophageal balloon position slightly influenced the lung elastance, while the PEEP reduced the chest wall elastance without affecting the lung and total respiratory system elastance. CONCLUSIONS:Paralysis and balloon position did not clinically affect the measurement of the ?Pes/?Paw ratio, while they significantly increased the end-expiratory esophageal pressure.

SUBMITTER: Chiumello D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4751101 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The occlusion tests and end-expiratory esophageal pressure: measurements and comparison in controlled and assisted ventilation.

Chiumello Davide D Consonni Dario D Coppola Silvia S Froio Sara S Crimella Francesco F Colombo Andrea A

Annals of intensive care 20160212 1

<h4>Background</h4>Esophageal pressure is used as a reliable surrogate of the pleural pressure. It is conventionally measured by an esophageal balloon placed in the lower part of the esophagus. To validate the correct position of the balloon, a positive pressure occlusion test by compressing the thorax during an end-expiratory pause or a Baydur test obtained by occluding the airway during an inspiratory effort is used. An acceptable catheter position is defined when the ratio between the changes ...[more]

PMID: 26868503

Similar Datasets

Project description:For patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, the pneumoperitoneum with a steep Trendelenburg position could worsen intraoperative respiratory mechanics and result in postoperative atelectasis. We investigated the effects of individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on postoperative atelectasis, evaluated using lung ultrasonography. Sixty patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were randomly allocated into two groups. Individualized groups (n = 30) received individualized PEEP determined by a decremental PEEP trial using 20 to 7 cm H2O, aiming at maximizing respiratory compliance, whereas standardized groups (n = 30) received a standardized PEEP of 7 cm H2O during the pneumoperitoneum. Ultrasound examination was performed on 12 sections of thorax, and the lung ultrasound score was measured as 0-3 by considering the number of B lines and the degree of subpleural consolidation. The primary outcome was the difference between the lung ultrasound scores measured before anesthesia induction and just after extubation in the operating room. An increase in the difference means the development of atelectasis. The optimal PEEP in the individualized group was determined as the median (interquartile range) 14 (12-18) cm H2O. Compared with the standardized group, the difference in the lung ultrasound scores was significantly smaller in the individualized group (-0.5 ± 2.7 vs. 6.0 ± 2.9, mean difference -6.53, 95% confidence interval (-8.00 to -5.07), p < 0.001), which means that individualized PEEP was effective to reduce atelectasis. The lung ultrasound score measured after surgery was significantly lower in the individualized group than the standardized group (8.1 ± 5.7 vs. 12.2 ± 4.2, mean difference -4.13, 95% confidence interval (-6.74 to -1.53), p = 0.002). However, the arterial partial pressure of the oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen levels during the surgery showed no significant time-group interaction between the two groups in repeated-measures analysis of variance (p = 0.145). The incidence of a composite of postoperative respiratory complications was comparable between the two groups. Individualized PEEP determined by maximal respiratory compliance during the pneumoperitoneum and steep Trendelenburg position significantly reduced postoperative atelectasis, as evaluated using lung ultrasonography. However, the clinical significance of this finding should be evaluated by a larger clinical trial.

Project description:Weaning patients from mechanical ventilation (MV) is a critical and resource intensive process in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) that impacts patient outcomes and healthcare expenses. Weaning methods vary widely among providers. Prolonged MV is associated with adverse events and higher healthcare expenses. Predicting weaning readiness is a non-trivial process in which the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), a crucial component of MV, has potential to be indicative but has not yet been used as the target. We aimed to predict successful weaning from mechanical ventilation by targeting changes in the PEEP-level using a supervised machine learning model. This retrospective study included 12,153 mechanically ventilated patients from Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-IV) and eICU collaborative research database (eICU-CRD). Two machine learning models (Extreme Gradient Boosting and Logistic Regression) were developed using a continuous PEEP reduction as target. The data is splitted into 80% as training set and 20% as test set. The model's predictive performance was reported using 95% confidence interval (CI), based on evaluation metrics such as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), F1-Score, Recall, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The model's descriptive performance was reported as the variable ranking using SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) algorithm. The best model achieved an AUROC of 0.84 (95% CI 0.83-0.85) and an AUPRC of 0.69 (95% CI 0.67-0.70) in predicting successful weaning based on the PEEP reduction. The model demonstrated a Recall of 0.85 (95% CI 0.84-0.86), F1-score of 0.86 (95% CI 0.85-0.87), PPV of 0.87 (95% CI 0.86-0.88), and NPV of 0.64 (95% CI 0.63-0.66). Most of the variables that SHAP algorithm ranked to be important correspond with clinical intuition, such as duration of MV, oxygen saturation (SaO2), PEEP, and Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) components. This study demonstrates the potential application of machine learning in predicting successful weaning from MV based on continuous PEEP reduction. The model's high PPV and moderate NPV suggest that it could be a useful tool to assist clinicians in making decisions regarding ventilator management.

Project description:BackgroundEsophageal pressure (Pes) has been used as a surrogate of pleural pressure (Ppl) to titrate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. The relationship between Pes and PEEP remains undetermined.MethodsA gastric tube with a balloon catheter was inserted to monitor Pes in moderate to severe ARDS patients who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation. To assess the end-expiratory Pes response (ΔPes) to PEEP changes (ΔPEEP), the PEEP level was decreased and increased subsequently (with an average change of 3 cmH2O). The patients underwent the following two series of PEEP adjustment: (I) from PEEP-3 cmH2O to PEEPbaseline; and (II) from PEEPbaseline to PEEP+3 cmH2O. The patients were classified as "PEEP-dependent type" if they had ΔPes ≥30% ΔPEEP and were otherwise classified as "PEEP-independent type" (ΔPes <30% ΔPEEP in any series).ResultsIn total, 54 series of PEEP adjustments were performed in 18 ARDS patients. Of these patients, 12 were classified as PEEP-dependent type, and six were classified as PEEP-independent type. During the PEEP adjustment, end-expiratory Pes changed significantly in the PEEP-dependent patients, who had a Pes of 10.8 (7.9, 12.3), 12.5 (10.5, 14.9), and 14.5 (13.1, 18.3) cmH2O at PEEP-3 cmH2O, PEEPbaseline, and PEEP+3 cmH2O, respectively (median and quartiles; P<0.0001), while end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (PL) was maintained at an optimal range [-0.1 (-0.7, 0.4), 0.1 (-0.6, 0.5), and 0.3 (-0.3, 0.7) cmH2O, respectively]. In the PEEP-independent patients, the Pes remained unchanged, with a Pes of 15.4 (11.4, 17.8), 15.5 (11.6, 17.8), and 15.4 (11.7, 18.30) cmH2O at each of the three PEEP levels, respectively. Meanwhile, end-expiratory PL significantly improved [from -5.5 (-8.5, -3.4) at PEEP-3 cmH2O to -2.5 (-5.0, -1.6) at PEEPbaseline to -0.5 (-1.8, 0.3) at PEEP+3 cmH2O; P<0.01].ConclusionsTwo types of Pes phenotypes were identified according to the ΔPes to ΔPEEP. The underlying mechanisms and implications for clinical practice require further exploration.

Project description:BackgroundPositive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has been demonstrated to decrease ventilator-induced lung injury in patients under mechanical ventilation (MV) for acute respiratory failure. Recently, some studies have proposed some beneficial effects of PEEP in ventilated patients without lung injury. The influence of PEEP on respiratory mechanics in children is not well known. Our aim was to determine the effects on respiratory mechanics of setting PEEP at 5 cmH2O in anesthetized healthy children.MethodsPatients younger than 15 years old without history of lung injury scheduled for elective surgery gave informed consent and were enrolled in the study. After usual care for general anesthesia, patients were placed on volume controlled MV. Two sets of respiratory mechanics studies were performed using inspiratory and expiratory breath hold, with PEEP 0 and 5 cmH2O. The maximum inspiratory and expiratory flow (QI and QE) as well as peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), plateau pressure (PPL) and total PEEP (tPEEP) were measured. Respiratory system compliance (CRS), inspiratory and expiratory resistances (RawI and RawE) and time constants (KTI and KTE) were calculated. Data were expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR). Wilcoxon sign test and Spearman's analysis were used. Significance was set at P < 0.05.ResultsWe included 30 patients, median age 39 (15-61.3) months old, 60% male. When PEEP increased, PIP increased from 12 (11,14) to 15.5 (14,18), and CRS increased from 0.9 (0.9,1.2) to 1.2 (0.9,1.4) mL·kg- 1·cmH2O- 1; additionally, when PEEP increased, driving pressure decreased from 6.8 (5.9,8.1) to 5.8 (4.7,7.1) cmH2O, and QE decreased from 13.8 (11.8,18.7) to 11.7 (9.1,13.5) L·min- 1 (all P < 0.01). There were no significant changes in resistance and QI.ConclusionsAnalysis of respiratory mechanics in anesthetized healthy children shows that PEEP at 5 cmH2O places the respiratory system in a better position in the P/V curve. A better understanding of lung mechanics may lead to changes in the traditional ventilatory approach, limiting injury associated with MV.

Dataset Information

The occlusion tests and end-expiratory esophageal pressure: measurements and comparison in controlled and assisted ventilation.

Publications

The occlusion tests and end-expiratory esophageal pressure: measurements and comparison in controlled and assisted ventilation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets