F Mojoli1, D Chiumello, M Pozzi, I Algieri, S Bianzina, S Luoni, C A Volta, A Braschi, L Brochard. 1. Sezione di Anestesia Rianimazione e Terapia Antalgica, Dipartimento di Scienze Clinico-chirurgiche, Diagnostiche e Pediatriche, SC Anestesia e Rianimazione 1, Università degli Studi di Pavia, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico S. Matteo, Pavia, Italy - chiumello@libero.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro the accuracy of second generation esophageal catheters at different surrounding pressures and filling volumes and to suggest appropriate catheter management in clinical practice. METHODS: Six different esophageal catheters were placed in an experimental chamber at four chamber pressures (0, 10, 20 and 30 cmH2O) and at filling volumes ranging from 0 to 10 mL. The working volume was defined as the volume range between the maximum (Vmax) and minimum (Vmin) volumes achieving acceptable accuracy (defined by a balloon transmural pressure ± 1 cmH2O). Accuracy was evaluated for a standard volume of 0.5 mL and for volumes recommended by manufacturers. Data are shown as median and interquartile range. RESULTS: In the four conditions of chamber pressure Vmin, Vmax and working volume were 1.0 (0.5, 1.5), 5.3 (3.8, 7.1), and 3.5 (2.9, 6.1) mL. Increasing chamber pressure increased Vmin (rho=0.9; P<0.0001), that reached 2.0 mL (1.6-2.0) at 30 cmH2O. Vmax and working volumes differed among catheters, whereas Vmin did not. By injecting 0.5 mL and the minimum recommended volume by manufacturer, balloon transmural pressure was <-1 cmH2O in 71% and 53% of cases, it was negatively related to chamber pressure (rho=-0.97 and -0.71; P<0.0001) and reached values of -10.4 (-12.4, -9.7) and -9.8 (-10.6, -3.4) at 30 cmH2O. CONCLUSION: Measuring positive esophageal pressures needs higher injected volumes than usually recommended. The range of appropriate filling volumes is catheter-specific. Both absolute values and respiratory changes of esophageal pressure can be underestimated by an underfilled balloon.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro the accuracy of second generation esophageal catheters at different surrounding pressures and filling volumes and to suggest appropriate catheter management in clinical practice. METHODS: Six different esophageal catheters were placed in an experimental chamber at four chamber pressures (0, 10, 20 and 30 cmH2O) and at filling volumes ranging from 0 to 10 mL. The working volume was defined as the volume range between the maximum (Vmax) and minimum (Vmin) volumes achieving acceptable accuracy (defined by a balloon transmural pressure ± 1 cmH2O). Accuracy was evaluated for a standard volume of 0.5 mL and for volumes recommended by manufacturers. Data are shown as median and interquartile range. RESULTS: In the four conditions of chamber pressure Vmin, Vmax and working volume were 1.0 (0.5, 1.5), 5.3 (3.8, 7.1), and 3.5 (2.9, 6.1) mL. Increasing chamber pressure increased Vmin (rho=0.9; P<0.0001), that reached 2.0 mL (1.6-2.0) at 30 cmH2O. Vmax and working volumes differed among catheters, whereas Vmin did not. By injecting 0.5 mL and the minimum recommended volume by manufacturer, balloon transmural pressure was <-1 cmH2O in 71% and 53% of cases, it was negatively related to chamber pressure (rho=-0.97 and -0.71; P<0.0001) and reached values of -10.4 (-12.4, -9.7) and -9.8 (-10.6, -3.4) at 30 cmH2O. CONCLUSION: Measuring positive esophageal pressures needs higher injected volumes than usually recommended. The range of appropriate filling volumes is catheter-specific. Both absolute values and respiratory changes of esophageal pressure can be underestimated by an underfilled balloon.
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: Christophe Guervilly; Magali Bisbal; Jean Marie Forel; Malika Mechati; Samuel Lehingue; Jeremy Bourenne; Gilles Perrin; Romain Rambaud; Melanie Adda; Sami Hraiech; Elisa Marchi; Antoine Roch; Marc Gainnier; Laurent Papazian Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-12-24 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Tommaso Mauri; Laura Alban; Cecilia Turrini; Barbara Cambiaghi; Eleonora Carlesso; Paolo Taccone; Nicola Bottino; Alfredo Lissoni; Savino Spadaro; Carlo Alberto Volta; Luciano Gattinoni; Antonio Pesenti; Giacomo Grasselli Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 17.440
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