• Gaetano Florio, Eleonora Carlesso, Francesco Mojoli, Fabiana Madotto, Luigi Vivona, Chiara Minaudo, Michele Battistin, Sebastiano Maria Colombo, Stefano Gatti, Simone Sosio, Antonio Pesenti, Giacomo Grasselli, and Alberto Zanella.
• Dipartimento Area Emergenza Urgenza, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
• BMC Anesthesiol. 2024 Nov 14; 24 (1): 415415.

BackgroundTranspulmonary pressure is the effective pressure across the lung parenchyma and has been proposed as a guide for mechanical ventilation. The pleural pressure is challenging to directly measure in clinical setting and esophageal manometry using esophageal balloon catheters was suggested for estimation. However, the accuracy of using esophageal pressure to estimate pleural pressure is debated due to variability in the mechanical properties of respiratory system, esophagus and esophageal catheter. Furthermore, while a vertical pleural pressure gradient exists across lung regions, esophageal pressure balloon provides a single value, representing, at most, the pressure surrounding the esophagus.MethodsIn a swine model with a preserved esophagus and a single homogenous, easily measurable intrathoracic pressure, we evaluated esophageal pressure's agreement with intrathoracic pressure at different positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels (0, 5, 10, 15 cmH2O). We assessed the improvement of measurement accuracy by correcting absolute esophageal values using a previously described technique, that accounts for the pressure generated by the esophageal wall in response to esophageal balloon inflation. The study involved five swine, wherein two different esophageal catheters were used alongside the four distinct PEEP levels. Swings, uncorrected and corrected absolute esophageal pressures (end-inspiratory, end-expiratory) were compared with their respective intrathoracic pressures. The effect of correction technique was assessed with manual incremental step inflation procedure.ResultsWe found that both catheters significantly overestimated absolute esophageal pressure compared to intrathoracic pressure (5.01 ± 3.32 and 6.06 ± 5.62 cmH2O at end-expiration and end-inspiration, respectively), with error increasing at higher positive end-expiratory pressure levels (end-expiration: 2.36 ± 2.03, 3.77 ± 1.37, 6.24 ± 2.51 and 7.69 ± 4.02 for each PEEP level, P < 0.0001; end-inspiration: 1.71 ± 2.10, 3.70 ± 1.73, 7.67 ± 3.62 and 11.14 ± 7.60 for each PEEP level, P = 0.0004). Applying the correction technique significantly improved agreement for absolute values (0.82 ± 1.62 and 1.86 ± 3.94 cmH2O at end-expiration and end-inspiration, respectively). Esophageal pressure swings accurately estimated intrathoracic pressure swings at low-medium intrathoracic pressures (-0.64 ± 0.62, -0.07 ± 0.53, 1.43 ± 1.51, and 3.45 ± 3.94 at PEEP 0, 5, 10 and 15 cmH2O, respectively; P = 0.0197).ConclusionsThe correction technique, based on the mechanical response of esophageal wall to the balloon inflation, is fundamental for obtaining reliable estimations of absolute intrathoracic pressure values, and for ensuring its correct application in clinical setting.© 2024. The Author(s).

15 keywords...

hide…