Lisanne Roesthuis1, Maarten van den Berg2, Hans van der Hoeven2. 1. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Lisanne.Roesthuis@Radboudumc.nl. 2. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High respiratory drive in mechanically ventilated patients with spontaneous breathing effort may cause excessive lung stress and strain and muscle loading. Therefore, it is important to have a reliable estimate of respiratory effort to guarantee lung and diaphragm protective mechanical ventilation. Recently, a novel non-invasive method was found to detect excessive dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure (∆PL) and respiratory muscle pressure (Pmus) with reasonable accuracy. During the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it was impossible to obtain the gold standard for respiratory effort, esophageal manometry, in every patient. Therefore, we investigated whether this novel non-invasive method could also be applied in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: ∆PL and Pmus were derived from esophageal manometry in COVID-19 patients. In addition, ∆PL and Pmus were computed from the occlusion pressure (∆Pocc) obtained during an expiratory occlusion maneuver. Measured and computed ∆PL and Pmus were compared and discriminative performance for excessive ∆PL and Pmus was assessed. The relation between occlusion pressure and respiratory effort was also assessed. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were included. Patients had a low dynamic lung compliance [24 (20-31) mL/cmH2O], high ∆PL (25 ± 6 cmH2O) and high Pmus (16 ± 7 cmH2O). Low agreement was found between measured and computed ∆PL and Pmus. Excessive ∆PL > 20 cmH2O and Pmus > 15 cmH2O were accurately detected (area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00-1.00], sensitivity 100% (95% CI, 72-100%) and specificity 100% (95% CI, 16-100%) and AUROC 0.98 (95% CI, 0.90-1.00), sensitivity 100% (95% CI, 54-100%) and specificity 86% (95% CI, 42-100%), respectively). Respiratory effort calculated per minute was highly correlated with ∆Pocc (for esophageal pressure time product per minute (PTPes/min) r2 = 0.73; P = 0.0002 and work of breathing (WOB) r2 = 0.85; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ∆PL and Pmus can be computed from an expiratory occlusion maneuver and can predict excessive ∆PL and Pmus in patients with COVID-19 with high accuracy.
BACKGROUND: High respiratory drive in mechanically ventilated patients with spontaneous breathing effort may cause excessive lung stress and strain and muscle loading. Therefore, it is important to have a reliable estimate of respiratory effort to guarantee lung and diaphragm protective mechanical ventilation. Recently, a novel non-invasive method was found to detect excessive dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure (∆PL) and respiratory muscle pressure (Pmus) with reasonable accuracy. During the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it was impossible to obtain the gold standard for respiratory effort, esophageal manometry, in every patient. Therefore, we investigated whether this novel non-invasive method could also be applied in COVID-19patients. METHODS: ∆PL and Pmus were derived from esophageal manometry in COVID-19patients. In addition, ∆PL and Pmus were computed from the occlusion pressure (∆Pocc) obtained during an expiratory occlusion maneuver. Measured and computed ∆PL and Pmus were compared and discriminative performance for excessive ∆PL and Pmus was assessed. The relation between occlusion pressure and respiratory effort was also assessed. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were included. Patients had a low dynamic lung compliance [24 (20-31) mL/cmH2O], high ∆PL (25 ± 6 cmH2O) and high Pmus (16 ± 7 cmH2O). Low agreement was found between measured and computed ∆PL and Pmus. Excessive ∆PL > 20 cmH2O and Pmus > 15 cmH2O were accurately detected (area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00-1.00], sensitivity 100% (95% CI, 72-100%) and specificity 100% (95% CI, 16-100%) and AUROC 0.98 (95% CI, 0.90-1.00), sensitivity 100% (95% CI, 54-100%) and specificity 86% (95% CI, 42-100%), respectively). Respiratory effort calculated per minute was highly correlated with ∆Pocc (for esophageal pressure time product per minute (PTPes/min) r2 = 0.73; P = 0.0002 and work of breathing (WOB) r2 = 0.85; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ∆PL and Pmus can be computed from an expiratory occlusion maneuver and can predict excessive ∆PL and Pmus in patients with COVID-19 with high accuracy.
Authors: Irene Telias; Detajin Junhasavasdikul; Nuttapol Rittayamai; Lise Piquilloud; Lu Chen; Niall D Ferguson; Ewan C Goligher; Laurent Brochard Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ewan C Goligher; Martin Dres; Eddy Fan; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Damon C Scales; Margaret S Herridge; Stefannie Vorona; Michael C Sklar; Nuttapol Rittayamai; Ashley Lanys; Alistair Murray; Deborah Brace; Cristian Urrea; W Darlene Reid; George Tomlinson; Arthur S Slutsky; Brian P Kavanagh; Laurent J Brochard; Niall D Ferguson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-01-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ewan C Goligher; Eddy Fan; Margaret S Herridge; Alistair Murray; Stefannie Vorona; Debbie Brace; Nuttapol Rittayamai; Ashley Lanys; George Tomlinson; Jeffrey M Singh; Steffen-Sebastian Bolz; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Brian P Kavanagh; Laurent J Brochard; Niall D Ferguson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-11-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Pleuni E Hooijman; Albertus Beishuizen; Christian C Witt; Monique C de Waard; Armand R J Girbes; Angelique M E Spoelstra-de Man; Hans W M Niessen; Emmy Manders; Hieronymus W H van Hees; Charissa E van den Brom; Vera Silderhuis; Michael W Lawlor; Siegfried Labeit; Ger J M Stienen; Koen J Hartemink; Marinus A Paul; Leo M A Heunks; Coen A C Ottenheijm Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ewan C Goligher; Laurent J Brochard; W Darlene Reid; Eddy Fan; Olli Saarela; Arthur S Slutsky; Brian P Kavanagh; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Niall D Ferguson Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Jonne Doorduin; Joeke L Nollet; Manon P A J Vugts; Lisanne H Roesthuis; Ferdi Akankan; Johannes G van der Hoeven; Hieronymus W H van Hees; Leo M A Heunks Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Ewan C Goligher; Annemijn H Jonkman; Jose Dianti; Katerina Vaporidi; Jeremy R Beitler; Bhakti K Patel; Takeshi Yoshida; Samir Jaber; Martin Dres; Tommaso Mauri; Giacomo Bellani; Alexandre Demoule; Laurent Brochard; Leo Heunks Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 41.787
Authors: David M Maslove; Stephanie Sibley; J Gordon Boyd; Ewan C Goligher; Laveena Munshi; Isaac I Bogoch; Bram Rochwerg Journal: Chest Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 10.262