BACKGROUND: A recent trial showed that setting PEEP according to end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (P(pl,ee)) in acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS) might improve patient outcome. P(pl,ee) was obtained by subtracting the absolute value of esophageal pressure (P(es)) from airway pressure an invariant value of 5 cm H(2)O. The goal of the present study was to compare 2 methods for correcting absolute P(es) values in terms of resulting P(pl,ee) and recommended PEEP. METHODS: Measurements collected prospectively from 42 subjects with various forms of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure receiving mechanical ventilation in ICU were analyzed. P(es) was measured at PEEP (P(es,ee)) and at relaxation volume of the respiratory system Vr (P(es,Vr)), obtained by allowing the subject to exhale into the atmosphere (zero PEEP). Two methods for correcting P(es) were compared: Talmor method (P(pl,ee,Talmor) = P(es,ee) - 5 cm H(2)O), and Vr method (P(es,ee,Vr) = P(es,ee) - P(es,Vr)). The rationale was that P(es,Vr) was a more physiologically based correction factor than an invariant value of 5 cm H(2)O applied to all subjects. RESULTS: Over the 42 subjects, median and interquartile range of P(es,ee) and P(es,Vr) were 11 (7-14) cm H(2)O and 8 (4-11) cm H(2)O, respectively. P(pl,ee,Talmor) was 6 (1-8) cm H(2)O, and P(es,ee,Vr) was 2 (1-5) cm H(2)O (P = .008). Two groups of subjects were defined, based on the difference between the 2 corrected values. In 28 subjects P(pl,ee,Talmor) was ≥ P(es,ee,Vr) (7 [5-9] cm H(2)O vs 2 [1-5] cm H(2)O, respectively), while in 14 subjects P(es,ee,Vr) was > P(pl,ee,Talmor) (2 [0-4] cm H(2)O vs -1 [-3 to 2] cm H(2)O, respectively). P(pl,ee,Vr) was significantly greater than P(pl,ee,Talmor) (7 [5-11] cm H(2)O vs 5 [2-7] cm H(2)O) in the former, and significantly lower in the latter (1 [-2 to 6] cm H(2)O vs 6 [4-9] cm H(2)O). CONCLUSIONS: Referring absolute P(es) values to Vr rather than to an invariant value would be better adapted to a patient's physiological background. Further studies are required to determine whether this correction method might improve patient outcome.
BACKGROUND: A recent trial showed that setting PEEP according to end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (P(pl,ee)) in acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS) might improve patient outcome. P(pl,ee) was obtained by subtracting the absolute value of esophageal pressure (P(es)) from airway pressure an invariant value of 5 cm H(2)O. The goal of the present study was to compare 2 methods for correcting absolute P(es) values in terms of resulting P(pl,ee) and recommended PEEP. METHODS: Measurements collected prospectively from 42 subjects with various forms of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure receiving mechanical ventilation in ICU were analyzed. P(es) was measured at PEEP (P(es,ee)) and at relaxation volume of the respiratory system Vr (P(es,Vr)), obtained by allowing the subject to exhale into the atmosphere (zero PEEP). Two methods for correcting P(es) were compared: Talmor method (P(pl,ee,Talmor) = P(es,ee) - 5 cm H(2)O), and Vr method (P(es,ee,Vr) = P(es,ee) - P(es,Vr)). The rationale was that P(es,Vr) was a more physiologically based correction factor than an invariant value of 5 cm H(2)O applied to all subjects. RESULTS: Over the 42 subjects, median and interquartile range of P(es,ee) and P(es,Vr) were 11 (7-14) cm H(2)O and 8 (4-11) cm H(2)O, respectively. P(pl,ee,Talmor) was 6 (1-8) cm H(2)O, and P(es,ee,Vr) was 2 (1-5) cm H(2)O (P = .008). Two groups of subjects were defined, based on the difference between the 2 corrected values. In 28 subjects P(pl,ee,Talmor) was ≥ P(es,ee,Vr) (7 [5-9] cm H(2)O vs 2 [1-5] cm H(2)O, respectively), while in 14 subjects P(es,ee,Vr) was > P(pl,ee,Talmor) (2 [0-4] cm H(2)O vs -1 [-3 to 2] cm H(2)O, respectively). P(pl,ee,Vr) was significantly greater than P(pl,ee,Talmor) (7 [5-11] cm H(2)O vs 5 [2-7] cm H(2)O) in the former, and significantly lower in the latter (1 [-2 to 6] cm H(2)O vs 6 [4-9] cm H(2)O). CONCLUSIONS: Referring absolute P(es) values to Vr rather than to an invariant value would be better adapted to a patient's physiological background. Further studies are required to determine whether this correction method might improve patient outcome.
Authors: Justin C Hotz; Cary T Sodetani; Jeffrey Van Steenbergen; Robinder G Khemani; Timothy W Deakers; Christopher J Newth Journal: Respir Care Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 2.258
Authors: Davide Chiumello; Massimo Cressoni; Andrea Colombo; Giovanni Babini; Matteo Brioni; Francesco Crimella; Stefan Lundin; Ola Stenqvist; Luciano Gattinoni Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-08-12 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Yeong Shiong Chiew; Christopher Pretty; Paul D Docherty; Bernard Lambermont; Geoffrey M Shaw; Thomas Desaive; J Geoffrey Chase Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Davide Chiumello; Dario Consonni; Silvia Coppola; Sara Froio; Francesco Crimella; Andrea Colombo Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Han Chen; Yan-Lin Yang; Ming Xu; Zhong-Hua Shi; Xuan He; Xiu-Mei Sun; Xu-Ying Luo; Guang-Qiang Chen; Jian-Xin Zhou Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 1.671
Authors: Francesco Mojoli; Giorgio Antonio Iotti; Francesca Torriglia; Marco Pozzi; Carlo Alberto Volta; Stefania Bianzina; Antonio Braschi; Laurent Brochard Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-04-11 Impact factor: 9.097