End-expiratory Transpulmonary Pressure Research Articles

The impact of a lung-protective ventilation mode using transpulmonary driving pressure titrated positive end-expiratory pressure on the prognosis of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

This study aimed to assess the impact of a lung-protective ventilation strategy utilizing transpulmonary driving pressure titrated positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on the prognosis [mechanical ventilation duration, hospital stay, 28-day mortality rate and incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), survival outcome] of patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). A total of 105 ARDS patients were randomly assigned to either the control group (n = 51) or the study group (n = 53). The control group received PEEP titration based on tidal volume [A tidal volume of 6 mL/kg, flow rate of 30-60L/min, frequency of 16-20 breaths/min, constant flow rate, inspiratory-to-expiratory ratio of 1:1 to 1:1.5, and a plateau pressure ≤ 30-35 cmH2O. PEEP was adjusted to maintain oxygen saturation (SaO2) at or above 90%, taking into account blood pressure], while the study group received PEEP titration based on transpulmonary driving pressure (Esophageal pressure was measured as a surrogate for pleural pressure using an esophageal pressure measurement catheter connected to the ventilator. Tidal volume and PEEP were adjusted based on the observed end-inspiratory and end-expiratory transpulmonary pressures, aiming to maintain a transpulmonary driving pressure below 15 cmH2O during mechanical ventilation. Adjustments were made 2-4 times per day). Statistical analysis and comparison were conducted on lung function indicators [oxygenation index (OI), arterial oxygen tension (PaO2), arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2)] as well as other measures such as heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and central venous pressure in two groups of patients after 48h of mechanical ventilation. The 28-day mortality rate, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) incidence were compared between the two groups. A 60-day follow-up was performed to record the survival status of the patients. In the control group, the mean age was (55.55 ± 10.51) years, with 33 females and 18 males. The pre-ICU hospital stay was (32.56 ± 9.89) hours. The mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score was (19.08 ± 4.67), and the mean Murray Acute Lung Injury score was (4.31 ± 0.94). In the study group, the mean age was (57.33 ± 12.21) years, with 29 females and 25 males. The pre-ICU hospital stay was (33.42 ± 10.75) hours. The mean APACHE II score was (20.23 ± 5.00), and the mean Murray Acute Lung Injury score was (4.45 ± 0.88). They presented a homogeneous profile (all P > 0.05). Following intervention, significant improvements were observed in PaO2 and OI compared to pre-intervention values. The study group exhibited significantly higher PaO2 and OI compared to the control group, with statistically significant differences (all P < 0.05). After intervention, the study group exhibited a significant increase in PaCO2 (43.69 ± 6.71 mmHg) compared to pre-intervention levels (34.19 ± 5.39 mmHg). The study group's PaCO2 was higher than the control group (42.15 ± 7.25 mmHg), but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in hemodynamic indicators between the two groups post-intervention (all P > 0.05). The study group demonstrated significantly shorter mechanical ventilation duration and hospital stay, while 28-day mortality rate and incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) showed no significant differences. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed a significantly better survival outcome in the study group at the 60-day follow-up (HR = 0.565, 95% CI: 0.320-0.999). Lung-protective mechanical ventilation using transpulmonary driving pressure titrated PEEP effectively improves lung function, reduces mechanical ventilation duration and hospital stay, and enhances survival outcomes in patients with ARDS. However, further study is needed to facilitate the wider adoption of this approach.

Monitoring lung recruitment.

This review explores lung recruitment monitoring, covering techniques, challenges, and future perspectives. Various methodologies, including respiratory system mechanics evaluation, arterial bold gases (ABGs) analysis, lung imaging, and esophageal pressure (Pes) measurement are employed to assess lung recruitment. In support to ABGs analysis, the assessment of respiratory mechanics with hysteresis and recruitment-to-inflation ratio has the potential to evaluate lung recruitment and enhance mechanical ventilation setting. Lung imaging tools, such as computed tomography scanning, lung ultrasound, and electrical impedance tomography (EIT) confirm their utility in following lung recruitment with the advantage of radiation-free and repeatable application at the bedside for sonography and EIT. Pes enables the assessment of dorsal lung tendency to collapse through end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure. Despite their value, these methodologies may require an elevated expertise in their application and data interpretation. However, the information obtained by these methods may be conveyed to build machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms aimed at improving the clinical decision-making process. Monitoring lung recruitment is a crucial component of managing patients with severe lung conditions, within the framework of a personalized ventilatory strategy. Although challenges persist, emerging technologies offer promise for a personalized approach to care in the future.

Phenotypes of esophageal pressure response to the change of positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Esophageal 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. A 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). In 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]. Two types of Pes phenotypes were identified according to the ΔPes to ΔPEEP. The underlying mechanisms and implications for clinical practice require further exploration.

Physiological effects of lung-protective ventilation in patients with lung fibrosis and usual interstitial pneumonia pattern versus primary ARDS: a matched-control study

BackgroundAlthough patients with interstitial pneumonia pattern (ILD-UIP) and acute exacerbation (AE) leading to severe acute respiratory failure may require invasive mechanical ventilation (MV), physiological data on lung mechanics during MV are lacking. We aimed at describing the physiological effect of lung-protective ventilation in patients with AE-ILD-UIP compared with primary ARDS.MethodsPartitioned lung and chest wall mechanics were assessed in a series of AE-ILD-UIP patients matched 1:1 with primary ARDS as controls (based on BMI and PaO2/FiO2 ratio). Three PEEP levels (zero = ZEEP, 4–8 cmH2O = PEEPLOW, and titrated to achieve positive end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure PL,EE = PEEPTITRATED) were used for measurements.ResultsTen AE-ILD-UIP patients and 10 matched ARDS were included. In AE-ILD-UIP median PL,EE at ZEEP was − 4.3 [− 7.6– − 2.3] cmH2O and lung elastance (EL) 44 [40–51] cmH2O/L. At PEEPLOW, PL,EE remained negative and EL did not change (p = 0.995) versus ZEEP. At PEEPTITRATED, PL,EE increased to 0.8 [0.3–1.5] cmH2O and EL to 49 [43–59] (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001 compared to ZEEP and PEEPLOW, respectively). ΔPL decreased at PEEPLOW (p = 0.018) and increased at PEEPTITRATED (p = 0.003). In matched ARDS control PEEP titration to obtain a positive PL,EE did not result in significant changes in EL and ΔPL.ConclusionsIn mechanically ventilated AE-ILD-UIP patients, differently than in patients with primary ARDS, PEEP titrated to obtain a positive PL,EE significantly worsened lung mechanics.

Effects of different positive end-expiratory pressure titration strategies on mechanical power during ultraprotective ventilation in ARDS patients treated with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A prospective interventional study

PurposeUltraprotective ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) reduces mechanical power (MP) through changes in positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP); however, the optimal approach to titrate PEEP is unknown. This study assesses the effects of three PEEP titration strategies on MP, hemodynamic parameters, and oxygen delivery in twenty ARDS patients with VV ECMO. Material and methodsPEEP was titrated according to: (A) a PEEP of 10 cmH2O representing the lowest recommendation by the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (PEEPELSO), (B) the highest static compliance of the respiratory system (PEEPCstat,RS), and (C) a target end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure of 0 cmH2O (PEEPPtpexp). ResultsPEEPELSO was lower compared to PEEPCstat,RS and PEEPPtpexp (10.0 ± 0.0 vs. 16.2 ± 4.7 cmH2O and 17.3 ± 4.0 cmH2O, p < 0.001 each, respectively). PEEPELSO reduced MP compared to PEEPCstat,RS and PEEPPtpexp (5.3 ± 1.3 vs. 6.8 ± 2.0 and 6.9 ± 2.3 J/min, p < 0.001 each, respectively). PEEPELSO resulted in less lung stress compared to PEEPCstat,RS (p = 0.011) and PEEPPtpexp (p < 0.001) and increased cardiac output and oxygen delivery (p < 0.001 each). ConclusionsAn empirical PEEP of 10 cmH2O minimized MP, provided favorable hemodynamics, and increased oxygen delivery in ARDS patients treated with VV ECMO. Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00013967). Registered 02/09/2018https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00013967

Successful management by employing situational extracorporeal membrane oxygenation strategies in a patient with acute type A aortic dissection: a case report

BackgroundWe successfully treated a case of acute type A aortic dissection in a patient with acute inferior wall infarction as well as severe circulatory and respiratory disorders.Case presentationA 69-year-old woman was diagnosed with acute type A aortic dissection. She received emergency partial aortic arch replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting. After the cardiopulmonary bypass, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) with central cannulation was performed due to severe right heart failure and extensive alveolar hemorrhage. Since the surgery, transesophageal echocardiography was used to monitor her hemodynamic status. The positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was managed based on end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure. Replacement of the ECMO circuit was required every 2–3 days due to intra-circuit thrombus, and continuous renal replacement therapy was started on postoperative day (POD) 8. On POD 13, improvement of cardiac function was observed; we therefore attempted closure of the chest and conversion to veno-venous (V-V) ECMO. However, the patient’s hemodynamics were unstable due to diastolic impairment after the chest closure; thus, peripheral veno-arteriovenous (V-AV) ECMO was introduced. The patient was converted to V-V ECMO on POD 16 and weaned from ECMO on POD 17. The patient was extubated on POD 19. She left the intensive care unit with non-invasive ventilation on POD 20.ConclusionsThe favorable outcome in the current case can be attributed to the following three points: (1) appropriate ECMO strategies were employed according to the patient’s condition, (2) the patient’s lung condition improved due to transpulmonary pressure monitoring and fluid balance management from an early stage, and (3) we observed respiratory and hemodynamic status during the 50–90-s circulatory arrest periods that occurred during ECMO circuit changes, and this observation contributed to the evaluation of weaning from ECMO.

Individualized Positive End-expiratory Pressure Titration Strategies in Superobese Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery: Prospective and Nonrandomized Crossover Study.

Superobesity and laparoscopic surgery promote negative end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure that causes atelectasis formation and impaired respiratory mechanics. The authors hypothesized that end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure differs between fixed and individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategies and mediates their effects on respiratory mechanics, end-expiratory lung volume, gas exchange, and hemodynamic parameters in superobese patients. In this prospective, nonrandomized crossover study including 40 superobese patients (body mass index 57.3 ± 6.4 kg/m2) undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery, PEEP was set according to (1) a fixed level of 8 cm H2O (PEEPEmpirical), (2) the highest respiratory system compliance (PEEPCompliance), or (3) an end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure targeting 0 cm H2O (PEEPTranspul) at different surgical positioning. The primary endpoint was end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure at different surgical positioning; secondary endpoints were respiratory mechanics, end-expiratory lung volume, gas exchange, and hemodynamic parameters. Individualized PEEPCompliance compared to fixed PEEPEmpirical resulted in higher PEEP (supine, 17.2 ± 2.4 vs. 8.0 ± 0.0 cm H2O; supine with pneumoperitoneum, 21.5 ± 2.5 vs. 8.0 ± 0.0 cm H2O; and beach chair with pneumoperitoneum; 15.8 ± 2.5 vs. 8.0 ± 0.0 cm H2O; P < 0.001 each) and less negative end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (supine, -2.9 ± 2.0 vs. -10.6 ± 2.6 cm H2O; supine with pneumoperitoneum, -2.9 ± 2.0 vs. -14.1 ± 3.7 cm H2O; and beach chair with pneumoperitoneum, -2.8 ± 2.2 vs. -9.2 ± 3.7 cm H2O; P < 0.001 each). Titrated PEEP, end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure, and lung volume were lower with PEEPCompliance compared to PEEPTranspul (P < 0.001 each). Respiratory system and transpulmonary driving pressure and mechanical power normalized to respiratory system compliance were reduced using PEEPCompliance compared to PEEPTranspul. In superobese patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, individualized PEEPCompliance may provide a feasible compromise regarding end-expiratory transpulmonary pressures compared to PEEPEmpirical and PEEPTranspul, because PEEPCompliance with slightly negative end-expiratory transpulmonary pressures improved respiratory mechanics, lung volumes, and oxygenation while preserving cardiac output.

Work of breathing and lung volume during forward leaning supported by the upper limbs

This study compared work of breathing (WOB) and the pressure time product (PTP) to verify whether WOB and PTP decrease in the forward-leaning posture compared with erect sitting. Seven healthy adults (two females and five males) adopted three sitting postures: upright, and two forward-leaning postures of 15° and 30°. The WOB was obtained using the modified Campbell diagram, and PTP was calculated as the time integral of the area between esophageal and chest wall pressure. End-expiratory lung volume and transpulmonary pressure were significantly increased in the 15° and 30° forward-leaning postures compared with erect sitting (p ≦ 0.05). End-inspiratory lung volume was significantly increased in the 30° forward-leaning posture compared to erect sitting (p ≦ 0.05). PTP and inspiratory resistive WOB were significantly lower in the 15° and 30° forward-leaning postures compared to erect sitting (p ≦ 0.05). Forward leaning increases lung volume, which may dilate the airways, decrease resistant WOB, and reduce respiratory muscle activity.

Optimal positive end-expiratory pressure reduces right ventricular dysfunction in COVID-19 patients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A retrospective single-center study

While mechanical ventilation practices on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) are variable, most institutions utilize a lung rest strategy utilizing relatively low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). The effect of PEEP titration using esophageal manometry during VV ECMO on pulmonary and cardiac function is unknown. This was a retrospective study of 69 patients initiated on VV ECMO between March 2020 through November 2021. Patients underwent standard PEEP (typically 10 cm H2O) or optimal PEEP (PEEP titrated to an end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure 0–3 cm H2O) throughout the ECMO run. The optimal PEEP strategy had higher levels of applied PEEP (17.9 vs. 10.8 cm H2O on day 2 of ECMO), decreased incidence of hemodynamically significant RV dysfunction (4.55% vs. 44.0%, p = 0.0001), and higher survival to decannulation (72.7% vs. 44.0%, p = 0.022). Survival to discharge did not reach statistical significance (61.4% vs. 44.0%, p = 0.211). In univariate logistic regression analysis, optimal PEEP was associated with less hemodynamically significant RV dysfunction with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01–0.27, p = 0.0008) and increased survival to decannulation with an OR of 3.39 (95% CI 1.23–9.79), p = 0.02), though other confounding factors may have contributed.

Minimizing Lung Injury During Laparoscopy in Head-Down Tilt: A Physiological Cohort Study.

Increased intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopy induces atelectasis. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can alleviate atelectasis but may cause hyperinflation. Cyclic opening of collapsed alveoli and hyperinflation can lead to ventilator-induced lung injury and postoperative pulmonary complications. We aimed to study the effect of PEEP on atelectasis, lung stress, and hyperinflation during laparoscopy in the head-down (Trendelenburg) position. An open-label, repeated-measures, interventional, physiological cohort trial was designed. All participants were recruited from a single tertiary Belgian university hospital. Twenty-three nonobese patients scheduled for laparoscopy in the Trendelenburg position were recruited.We applied a decremental PEEP protocol: 15 (high), 10 and 5 (low) cm H 2 O. Atelectasis was studied with the lung ultrasound score, the end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure, the arterial oxygen partial pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen concentration (P ao2 /Fi o2 ) ratio, and the dynamic respiratory system compliance. Global hyperinflation was evaluated by dead space volume, and regional ventilation was evaluated by lung ultrasound. Lung stress was estimated using the transpulmonary driving pressure and dynamic compliance. Data are reported as medians (25th-75th percentile). At 15, 10, and 5 cm H 2 O PEEP, the respective measurements were: lung ultrasound scores (%) 11 (0-22), 27 (11-39), and 53 (42-61) ( P < .001); end-expiratory transpulmonary pressures (cm H 2 O) 0.9 (-0.6 to 1.7), -0.3 (-2.0 to 0.7), and -1.9 (-4.6 to -0.9) ( P < .001); P ao2 /Fi o2 ratios (mm Hg) 471 (435-538), 458 (410-537), and 431 (358-492) ( P < .001); dynamic respiratory system compliances (mL/cm H 2 O) 32 (26-36), 30 (25-34), and 27 (22-30) ( P < .001); driving pressures (cm H 2 O) 8.2 (7.5-9.5), 9.3 (8.5-11.1), and 11.0 (10.3-12.2) ( P < .001); and alveolar dead space ventilation fractions (%) 10 (9-12), 10 (9-12), and 9 (8-12) ( P = .23). The lung ultrasound score was similar between apical and basal lung regions at each PEEP level ( P = .76, .37, and .76, respectively). Higher PEEP levels during laparoscopy in the head-down position facilitate lung-protective ventilation. Atelectasis and lung stress are reduced in the absence of global alveolar hyperinflation.

Paradoxical Positioning: Does "Head Up" Always Improve Mechanics and Lung Protection?

OBJECTIVES:Head-elevated body positioning, a default clinical practice, predictably increases end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure and aerated lung volume. In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), however, the net effect of such vertical inclination on tidal mechanics depends upon whether lung recruitment or overdistension predominates. We hypothesized that in moderate to severe ARDS, bed inclination toward vertical unloads the chest wall but adversely affects overall respiratory system compliance (Crs).DESIGN:Prospective physiologic study.SETTING:Two medical ICUs in the United States.PATIENTS:Seventeen patients with ARDS, predominantly moderate to severe.INTERVENTION:Patients were ventilated passively by volume control. We measured airway pressures at baseline (noninclined) and following bed inclination toward vertical by an additional 15°. At baseline and following inclination, we manually loaded the chest wall to determine if Crs increased or paradoxically declined, suggestive of end-tidal overdistension.MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Inclination resulted in a higher plateau pressure (supineΔ: 2.8 ± 3.3 cm H2O [p = 0.01]; proneΔ: 3.3 ± 2.5 cm H2O [p = 0.004]), higher driving pressure (supineΔ: 2.9 ± 3.3 cm H2O [p = 0.01]; proneΔ: 3.3 ± 2.8 cm H2O [p = 0.007]), and lower Crs (supine Δ: 3.4 ± 3.7 mL/cm H2O [p = 0.01]; proneΔ: 3.1 ± 3.2 mL/cm H2O [p = 0.02]). Following inclination, manual loading of the chest wall restored Crs and driving pressure to baseline (preinclination) values.CONCLUSIONS:In advanced ARDS, bed inclination toward vertical adversely affects Crs and therefore affects the numerical values for plateau and driving tidal pressures commonly targeted in lung protective strategies. These changes are fully reversed with manual loading of the chest wall, suggestive of end-tidal overdistension in the upright position. Body inclination should be considered a modifiable determinant of transpulmonary pressure and lung protection, directionally similar to tidal volume and positive end-expiratory pressure.

Dynamic Relative Regional Lung Strain Estimated by Electrical Impedance Tomography in an Experimental Model of ARDS.

To analyze the role of PEEP on dynamic relative regional strain (DRRS) in a model of ARDS, respective maps were generated by electrical impedance tomography (EIT). Eight ARDS pigs submitted to PEEP steps of 0, 5, 10, and 15 cm H2O at fixed ventilation were evaluated by EIT images. DRRS was calculated as (VT-EIT/EELI)/(VT-EIT[15PEEP]/EELI[15PEEP]), where the tidal volume (VT)-EIT and end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI) are the tidal and end-expiratory change in lung impedance, respectively. The measurement at 15 PEEP was taken as reference (end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure > 0 cm H2O). The relationship between EIT variables (center of ventilation, EELI, and DRRS) and airway pressures was assessed with mixed-effects models using EIT measurements as dependent variables and PEEP as fixed-effect variable. At constant ventilation, respiratory compliance increased progressively with PEEP (lowest value at zero PEEP 10 ± 3 mL/cm H2O and highest value at 15 PEEP 16 ± 6 mL/cm H2O; P < .001), whereas driving pressure decreased with PEEP (highest value at zero PEEP 34 ± 6 cm H2O and lowest value at 15 PEEP 21 ± 4 cm H2O; P < .001). The mixed-effect regression models showed that the center of ventilation moved to dorsal lung areas with a slope of 1.81 (1.44-2.18) % points by each cm H2O of PEEP; P < .001. EELI increased with a slope of 0.05 (0.02-0.07) (arbitrary units) for each cm H2O of PEEP; P < .001. DRRS maps showed that local strain in ventral lung areas decreased with a slope of -0.02 (-0.24 to 0.15) with each cm H2O increase of PEEP; P < .001. EIT-derived DRRS maps showed high strain in ventral lung zones at low levels of PEEP. The findings suggest overdistention of the baby lung.

Effects of different positive end-expiratory pressure titration strategies during prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective interventional study

BackgroundProne positioning in combination with the application of low tidal volume and adequate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) improves survival in patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the effects of PEEP on end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (Ptpexp) during prone positioning require clarification. For this purpose, the effects of three different PEEP titration strategies on Ptpexp, respiratory mechanics, mechanical power, gas exchange, and hemodynamics were evaluated comparing supine and prone positioning.MethodsIn forty consecutive patients with moderate to severe ARDS protective ventilation with PEEP titrated according to three different titration strategies was evaluated during supine and prone positioning: (A) ARDS Network recommendations (PEEPARDSNetwork), (B) the lowest static elastance of the respiratory system (PEEPEstat,RS), and (C) targeting a positive Ptpexp (PEEPPtpexp). The primary endpoint was to analyze whether Ptpexp differed significantly according to PEEP titration strategy during supine and prone positioning.ResultsPtpexp increased progressively with prone positioning compared with supine positioning as well as with PEEPEstat,RS and PEEPPtpexp compared with PEEPARDSNetwork (positioning effect p < 0.001, PEEP strategy effect p < 0.001). PEEP was lower during prone positioning with PEEPEstat,RS and PEEPPtpexp (positioning effect p < 0.001, PEEP strategy effect p < 0.001). During supine positioning, mechanical power increased progressively with PEEPEstat,RS and PEEPPtpexp compared with PEEPARDSNetwork, and prone positioning attenuated this effect (positioning effect p < 0.001, PEEP strategy effect p < 0.001). Prone compared with supine positioning significantly improved oxygenation (positioning effect p < 0.001, PEEP strategy effect p < 0.001) while hemodynamics remained stable in both positions.ConclusionsProne positioning increased transpulmonary pressures while improving oxygenation and hemodynamics in patients with moderate to severe ARDS when PEEP was titrated according to the ARDS Network lower PEEP table. This PEEP titration strategy minimized parameters associated with ventilator-induced lung injury induction, such as transpulmonary driving pressure and mechanical power. We propose that a lower PEEP strategy (PEEPARDSNetwork) in combination with prone positioning may be part of a lung protective ventilation strategy in patients with moderate to severe ARDS.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00017449). Registered June 27, 2019. https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00017449

Reproducible determination of transpulmonary pressures

Oesophageal pressures, as measured in an oesophageal balloon catheter, are a validated substitute for pleural pressures.Transpulmonary pressures, indispensable to improve our understanding of ventilatory physiology, are therefore typically calculated as the difference between airway and oesophageal pressures.The oesophageal pressure signal, however, features a superimposed oscillation due to cardiac motion, not representative for pleural pressure. Additionally, oesophageal contractions or surgical manipulation can alter the signal. In practice, transpulmonary pressures are therefore manually determined from the pressure-time graphic by visual inspection of the waves and averaging a limited number of samples.We suggest an approach to extract the end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure from the raw monitoring data.•Our approach reproducibly determines end-expiratory transpulmonary pressures at a given level of set positive end-expiratory pressure at the ventilator.•Our approach ignores surgical disturbance and cardiac oscillations in the oesophageal pressure signal.

Continuous external negative pressure improves oxygenation and respiratory mechanics in Experimental Lung Injury in Pigs \u2013 A pilot proof-of-concept trial

BackgroundContinuous external negative pressure (CENP) during positive pressure ventilation can recruit dependent lung regions. We hypothesised that CENP applied regionally to the thorax or the abdomen only, increases the caudal end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure depending on positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in lung-injured pigs. Eight pigs were anesthetised and mechanically ventilated in the supine position. Pressure sensors were placed in the left pleural space, and a lung injury was induced by saline lung lavages. A CENP shell was placed at the abdomen and thorax (randomised order), and animals were ventilated with PEEP 15, 7 and zero cmH2O (15 min each). On each PEEP level, CENP of − 40, − 30, − 20, − 10 and 0 cmH2O was applied (3 min each). Respiratory and haemodynamic variables were recorded. Electrical impedance tomography allowed assessment of centre of ventilation.ResultsCompared to positive pressure ventilation alone, the caudal transpulmonary pressure was significantly increased by CENP of ≤ 20 cmH2O at all PEEP levels. CENP of – 20 cmH2O reduced the mean airway pressure at zero PEEP (P = 0.025). The driving pressure decreased at CENP of ≤ 10 at PEEP of 0 and 7 cmH2O (P < 0.001 each) but increased at CENP of – 30 cmH2O during the highest PEEP (P = 0.001). CENP of – 30 cmH2O reduced the mechanical power during zero PEEP (P < 0.001). Both elastance (P < 0.001) and resistance (P < 0.001) were decreased at CENP ≤ 30 at PEEP of 0 and 7 cmH2O. Oxygenation increased at CENP of ≤ 20 at PEEP of 0 and 7 cmH2O (P < 0.001 each). Applying external negative pressure significantly shifted the centre of aeration towards dorsal lung regions irrespectively of the PEEP level. Cardiac output decreased significantly at CENP -20 cmH2O at all PEEP levels (P < 0.001). Effects on caudal transpulmonary pressure, elastance and cardiac output were more pronounced when CENP was applied to the abdomen compared with the thorax.ConclusionsIn this lung injury model in pigs, CENP increased the end-expiratory caudal transpulmonary pressure. This lead to a shift of lung aeration towards dependent zones as well as improved respiratory mechanics and oxygenation, especially when CENP was applied to the abdomen as compared to the thorax. CENP values ≤ 20 cmH2O impaired the haemodynamics.

Individualized PEEP to optimise respiratory mechanics during abdominal surgery: a pilot randomised controlled trial

BackgroundHigher intraoperative driving pressures (ΔP) are associated with increased postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC). We hypothesised that dynamic adjustment of PEEP throughout abdominal surgery reduces ΔP, maintains positive end-expiratory transpulmonary pressures (Ptp_ee) and increases respiratory system static compliance (Crs) with PEEP levels that are variable between and within patients. MethodsIn a prospective multicentre pilot study, adults at moderate/high risk for PPC undergoing elective abdominal surgery were randomised to one of three ventilation protocols: (1) PEEP≤2 cm H2O, compared with periodic recruitment manoeuvres followed by individualised PEEP to either optimise respiratory system compliance (PEEPmaxCrs) or maintain positive end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (PEEPPtp_ee). The composite primary outcome included intraoperative ΔP, Ptp_ee, Crs, and PEEP values (median (interquartile range) and coefficients of variation [CVPEEP]). ResultsThirty-seven patients (48.6% female; age range: 47–73 yr) were assigned to control (PEEP≤2 cm H2O; n=13), PEEPmaxCrs (n=16), or PEEPPtp_ee (n=8) groups. The PEEPPtp_ee intervention could not be delivered in two patients. Subjects assigned to PEEPmaxCrs had lower ΔP (median8 cm H2O [7–10]), compared with the control group (12 cm H2O [10–15]; P=0.006). PEEPmaxCrs was also associated with higher Ptp_ee (2.0 cm H2O [-0.7 to 4.5] vs controls: -8.3 cm H2O [-13.0 to -4.0]; P≤0.001) and higher Crs (47.7 ml cm H2O [43.2–68.8] vs controls: 39.0 ml cm H2O [32.9–43.4]; P=0.009). Individualised PEEP (PEEPmaxCrs and PEEPPtp_ee combined) varied widely (median: 10 cm H2O [8-15]; CVPEEP=0.24 [0.14–0.35]), both between, and within, subjects throughout surgery. ConclusionsThis pilot study suggests that individualised PEEP management strategies applied during abdominal surgery reduce driving pressure, maintain positive Ptp_ee and increase static compliance. The wide range of PEEP observed suggests that an individualised approach is required to optimise respiratory mechanics during abdominal surgery. Clinical trial registrationNCT02671721.

Body Habitus and Dynamic Surgical Conditions Independently Impair Pulmonary Mechanics during Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Surgery.

Body habitus, pneumoperitoneum, and Trendelenburg positioning may each independently impair lung mechanics during robotic laparoscopic surgery. This study hypothesized that increasing body mass index is associated with more mechanical strain and alveolar collapse, and these impairments are exacerbated by pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg positioning. This cross-sectional study measured respiratory flow, airway pressures, and esophageal pressures in 91 subjects with body mass index ranging from 18.3 to 60.6 kg/m2. Pulmonary mechanics were quantified at four stages: (1) supine and level after intubation, (2) with pneumoperitoneum, (3) in Trendelenburg docked with the surgical robot, and (4) level without pneumoperitoneum. Subjects were stratified into five body mass index categories (less than 25, 25 to 29.9, 30 to 34.9, 35 to 39.9, and 40 or higher), and respiratory mechanics were compared over surgical stages using generalized estimating equations. The optimal positive end-expiratory pressure settings needed to achieve positive end-expiratory transpulmonary pressures were calculated. At baseline, transpulmonary driving pressures increased in each body mass index category (1.9 ± 0.5 cm H2O; mean difference ± SD; P < 0.006), and subjects with a body mass index of 40 or higher had decreased mean end-expiratory transpulmonary pressures compared with those with body mass index of less than 25 (-7.5 ± 6.3 vs. -1.3 ± 3.4 cm H2O; P < 0.001). Pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg each further elevated transpulmonary driving pressures (2.8 ± 0.7 and 4.7 ± 1.0 cm H2O, respectively; P < 0.001) and depressed end-expiratory transpulmonary pressures (-3.4 ± 1.3 and -4.5 ± 1.5 cm H2O, respectively; P < 0.001) compared with baseline. Optimal positive end-expiratory pressure was greater than set positive end-expiratory pressure in 79% of subjects at baseline, 88% with pneumoperitoneum, 95% in Trendelenburg, and ranged from 0 to 36.6 cm H2O depending on body mass index and surgical stage. Increasing body mass index induces significant alterations in lung mechanics during robotic laparoscopic surgery, but there is a wide range in the degree of impairment. Positive end-expiratory pressure settings may need individualization based on body mass index and surgical conditions.

The assessment of esophageal pressure using different devices: a validation study.

Although esophageal pressure measurement could help clinicians to improve the ventilatory management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients, it has been mainly used in clinical research. Aim of this study was to compare the measurements of end-expiratory esophageal pressure, end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure and lung stress by three systems: a dedicated manual device, taken as gold standard, a new automatic system (Optivent) and a bedside equipment, consisting of a mechanical ventilator and a hemodynamic monitor. In sedated and paralyzed mechanically ventilated ARDS patients the esophageal pressure was measured at three PEEP levels in random fashion (baseline level, 50% higher and 50% lower). Forty patients were enrolled (BMI 25 [23-28] kg/m2, PaO<inf>2</inf>/FiO<inf>2</inf> 187 [137-223] and PEEP 9±3 cmH<inf>2</inf>O). The mean esophageal pressure measured during an expiratory pause by the dedicated system, the bedside system and Optivent were 10.0±4.2, 10±4 and 9.9±4.0 cmH<inf>2</inf>O, respectively. The respective bias and limits of agreement between the dedicated system and Optivent and between the dedicated system and the bedside system were as follows: end-expiratory esophageal pressure, 0.2 cmH<inf>2</inf>O, (-0.4 to 0.9) and -0.1 cmH<inf>2</inf>O (-1.9 to 1.7); end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure, -0.6 cmH<inf>2</inf>O (-1.7 to 0.4) and -0.4 cmH<inf>2</inf>O, (-2.2 to 1.5); lung stress -0.9 cmH<inf>2</inf>O (-3.0 to 1.1) and -1.5 cmH<inf>2</inf>O (-4.4 to 1.4). Both Optivent and the bedside system showed clinically acceptability if compared to the gold standard device. The possibility to apply one of these systems could allow a wider use of esophageal pressure in clinical practice.

Esophageal Pressure Versus Gas Exchange to Set PEEP During Intraoperative Ventilation.

Pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg position affect respiratory system mechanics and oxygenation during elective pelvic robotic surgery. The primary aim of this randomized pilot study was to compare the effects of a conventional low tidal volume ventilation with PEEP guided by gas exchange (VGas-guided) versus low tidal volume ventilation tailoring PEEP according to esophageal pressure (VPes-guided) on oxygenation and respiratory mechanics during elective pelvic robotic surgery. This study was conducted in a single-center tertiary hospital between September 2017 and January 2019. Forty-nine adult patients scheduled for elective pelvic robotic surgery were screened; 28 subjects completed the full analysis. Exclusion criteria were American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status ≥ 3, contraindications to nasogastric catheter placement, and pregnancy. After dedicated naso/orogastric catheter insertion, subjects were randomly assigned to VGas-guided ([Formula: see text] and PEEP set to achieve [Formula: see text] > 94%) or VPes-guided (PEEP tailored to equalize end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure). Oxygenation ([Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text]) was evaluated (1) at randomization, after pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg application; (2) at 60min; (3) at 120min following randomization; and (4) at end of surgery. Respiratory mechanics were assessed during the duration of the study. Compared to VGas-guided, oxygenation was higher with VPes-guided at 60 min (388 ± 90 vs 308 ± 95 mm Hg, P = .02), at 120min after randomization (400 ± 90 vs 308 ± 81 mm Hg, P = .008), and at the end of surgery (402 ± 95 vs 312 ± 95 mm Hg, P = .009). Respiratory system elastance was lower with VPes-guided compared to VGas-guided at 20min (24.2 ± 7.3 vs 33.4 ± 10.7cmH2O/L, P = .001) and 60min (24.1 ± 5.4 vs 31.9 ± 8.5cm H2O/L, P = .006) from randomization. Oxygenation and respiratory system mechanics were improved when applying a ventilatory strategy tailoring PEEP to equalize expiratory transpulmonary pressure in subjects undergoing pelvic robotic surgery compared to a VGas-guided approach. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT03153592).

A novel non-invasive method to detect excessively high respiratory effort and dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure during mechanical ventilation

BackgroundExcessive respiratory muscle effort during mechanical ventilation may cause patient self-inflicted lung injury and load-induced diaphragm myotrauma, but there are no non-invasive methods to reliably detect elevated transpulmonary driving pressure and elevated respiratory muscle effort during assisted ventilation. We hypothesized that the swing in airway pressure generated by respiratory muscle effort under assisted ventilation when the airway is briefly occluded (ΔPocc) could be used as a highly feasible non-invasive technique to screen for these conditions.MethodsRespiratory muscle pressure (Pmus), dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPL,dyn, the difference between peak and end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure), and ΔPocc were measured daily in mechanically ventilated patients in two ICUs in Toronto, Canada. A conversion factor to predict ΔPL,dyn and Pmus from ΔPocc was derived and validated using cross-validation. External validity was assessed in an independent cohort (Nanjing, China).ResultsFifty-two daily recordings were collected in 16 patients. In this sample, Pmus and ΔPL were frequently excessively high: Pmus exceeded 10 cm H2O on 84% of study days and ΔPL,dyn exceeded 15 cm H2O on 53% of study days. ΔPocc measurements accurately detected Pmus > 10 cm H2O (AUROC 0.92, 95% CI 0.83–0.97) and ΔPL,dyn > 15 cm H2O (AUROC 0.93, 95% CI 0.86–0.99). In the external validation cohort (n = 12), estimating Pmus and ΔPL,dyn from ΔPocc measurements detected excessively high Pmus and ΔPL,dyn with similar accuracy (AUROC ≥ 0.94).ConclusionsMeasuring ΔPocc enables accurate non-invasive detection of elevated respiratory muscle pressure and transpulmonary driving pressure. Excessive respiratory effort and transpulmonary driving pressure may be frequent in spontaneously breathing ventilated patients.